Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CITY OF KINGSTON
REPORT TO COUNCIL
I ReportNo.: 05-126 I
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
Mayor and Members of Council
Denis Leger, Acting Chief Administrative Officer
Gerard Hunt, Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services
DATE OF MEETING: 2005-04- 19
SUBJECT: Impact Analysis of the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Council receive the notification from the Minister of Finance on the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund dated March 3 1,2005.
2. That Council notify the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Finance of the projected negative impact of the new fund to the City of Kingston.
3. That Council approve the mitigation strategy as presented in this report, utilizing the Local Services Realignment Reserve to phase-in the negative impact of the new funding program, and that the 2005 budget be amended accordingly.
4. That excess funds resulting from the reconciliation of 2003 and 2004 CRF programs estimated at $1 .OM be allocated the Local Services Realignment Reserve.
ORIGIN/PURPOSE : The purpose of this report is to give Council a preliminary impact analysis on the City budget resulting from the new Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF).
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: On March 31, 2005, the Province announced the OMPF as the replacement program for the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF). Earlier in 2005, the Province had indicated that a new program would be forthcoming and, at that time, indicated the 2003 and 2004 program reconciliations would not be completed. In report number 05-012 - Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) - Provincial Update, we advised Council that the impact to the City of Kingston for the new reconciliation would amount to a shortfall for each of the years 2003 and 2004 in the approximate amount of $1.23M. On the City’s behalf, Council among several municipalities requested reconsideration of the reconciling decision. We have now been advised that the reconciliation will be completed for 2003 and 2004.
COUNCIL MEETIMGI 2 wl.( 1 9 ’05 REPORT TO COUNCIL
- Page 2 - Report No: 05-126
Despite the good news on the past years’ reconciliations, the program going forward has a substantial impact on the City of Kingston. Initial analysis reflects that the City will lose approximately $3.15M per annum once the phase-in adjustment expires. The current budget amount approved in the 2005 Operating Budget for CRF Provincial Grants is $7.96M. The new program will provide funding at the level of $4.81M by 2008. A phase-in adjustment of $1.75M in 2005 will be reduced by $0.25M in 2006, a further $0SM in 2007, and a further $0.98M in 2008. Assuming that 1% of the City’s tax revenue amounts to approximately $1.3M, the impact equates to a 2.4% tax increase or $50 per average assessed residential property of the municipal tax share.
The program elements of OMPF include Social Programs Grant, Equalization Grant, Northern and Rural Communities Grant, Police Services Grant and Phase-in Adjustment. The City only qualifies for the Social Programs Grant and the Police Services Grant. At the time of preparation of this report, the full details and methodology of the application of these program elements to the City are not completely understood, however the Social Programs Grant element is predicated on the differential between the Total Municipal Social Program Costs (including Ontario Works, Childcare, Ontario Disabilities Supports Program, and Social Housing), and the product of a calculation of .2% multiplied by the City’s overall weighted assessment adjusted for Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILs). The Police Services Grant is a calculation based on per household costs however, in our case, grandfathered due to the amalgamation of OPP service areas in 1998.
In 2000, the City established a Local Service Realignment Reserve (LSR) which was intended to assist with costs associated with realigned local services. To date, the reserve has been used in a limited fashion with the primary use being a $0.6M allocation for the affordable housing program approved in 2003. The 2004 year-end balance in the LSR Reserve is approximately $1.3M. In addition, the reconciliations of the CRF program for the years 2003 and 2004 will yield excess funds of approximately $1 .OM. The allocation of this amount to the LSR Reserve will provide funds to assist with mitigating the full impact of the new program level over the years 2005 to 2008 inclusive.
The following table reflects the OMPF announcement, the impact to the City of Kingston, and the strategy to mitigate the impact on the City’s budget.
OMPF Impact Summary and Mitigation Strategy
Social Program Grant Police Services Grant Phase-in Adjustment OMPF Funding
(3,153,337) (2,396,178)
Report No: 05-126
Consideration could be given to not utilizing the LSR Reserve for 2005 and future years. While this would enable the City to retain funds in the reserve, it would require additional tax impact in excess of 1.2% for 2005, with lesser impacts in future years. The City already has tax increase pressure from the Operating Budget in 2005 and therefore, it is recommended that a mitigation strategy be endorsed.
EXISTING POLICY/BY-LAW:
2005 Operating Budget By-law No. 2004-340
LINK TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: NIA
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The financial impact has been addressed in the body of the report. The strategy to mitigate the impact is intended to phase-in the impact over the years 2005 to 2008 inclusive to provide time to the City to understand in detail the elements of the new program, including the impact on municipal social program costs and weighed assessment calculation. In addition, should the Province initiate further changes or adjustments based on experience with the new program or as a result of immediate feedback, our mitigation strategy will enable flexibility.
Council has endorsed a multi-year Operating Budget forecast. This change will put additional pressure on tax rate levels. The expected impact is approximately half of 1% per annum with the mitigation approach.
The former CRF program included a transit bonus of $1.33M which originated as a result of transit grant programs being discontinued. The new funding program does not provide any funding of this nature. The document which announces Kingston's share of the new program makes reference this 2005 provincial gas tax allocation, but simply on the basis that it is revenue under other provincial initiatives, not to be considered as replacement for the CRF. As Council is aware, there are particular criteria and requirements for the use of the provincial gas tax allocation, and it has been made clear that the criteria is not to be compromised, otherwise the allocation will be in jeopardy. As a result, we do not recommend replacing the loss of the transit bonus from the former CRF program with the new provincial gas tax allocation.
CONTACTS:
Gerard Hunt, Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services
DEPARTMENTNOTHERS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED: Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
546-4291, Ext. 2205
.. 7 9
CObNCiL MEETlNGI 2 APR 1 9 '05 REPORT TO COUNCIL Report No: 05-126
- Page 4 -
NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A
APPENDICES:
Appendix A - Ministry of Finance correspondence to Heads of Council dated March 3 1,2005, announcing the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund.
Appendix B - Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund - 2005 OMPF Allocation for the City of Kingston
$3 --) /" , //i' /"*. e, 4- 1-, -7\
v h-
/Gerard Hunt Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services
I Acting Chief Administrative Officer
1 80
COUNCIL MEETING 1 2 M’H f 9 ’05 APPENDIX A
Mlnts tQ Of Finance Office of the Minister Fmt Building Soum 7 Queen’s Park Cr TQtWklO ON M7A 1Y7 Tel(416) 3254590 Tel(416) 585-7106 Fa% (41 6) 325-1595 w.mah.gov.6n.m
Ministy of MUnlClpPl Atfa\rs and Houshg Office of the Minister 77? Bay Street Toronto. ON M5G 2E5
,
Ontario
March 31,2005
Bear Head of Council:
We are pleased to share with you the details of the Ontario Municlpal Partnership Fund (OMPF), a fairer and more transparent funding model that will replace the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) for 2005 and beyond.
Despite the government‘s fiscal challenge8, we will provide municipalities with $668 million in 2005 for the OMPF, an increase of 6.1 per cent over the 2004 CRF. th i s funding will flow through four components:
Social Programs Grant: $179 M Equalization Grant: $1 70 M Notthem and Rural Communities Grant: $249 M Police Services Grant: $58 M
3
- -
These grants go a long way towards addressing what you told us were major irritants and inequities in the complex and outdated CRF model. The discussion of municipal concerns through the Strong Communities initiative assisted the government in the design of the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund.
In addition to responding to differences in municipalities’ fiscal capacities, the OMPF will also provide a more equitable and transparent distribution of funding to support: municipalities’ social program costs, poke costs and the challenges faced by rural and northern Communities.
In January 2005, we announced 8 Stable! Funding Guarantee that ensures municipalities will receive, at a minimum, 8s much funding in 2005 as they received through the CRF in 2004, The specific details of the Stable Funding Guarantee were provided to municipalities at that time.
At the OGRNROMA Conference in February, the Province committed to provide $206 million in one-time transition assi$tance, including the provision for a 2003 CRf 4
reconciliation,
... 2
. 81
The government has revisited the transition strategy to include a 2004 reconciliation. WS are pleased to advise that in the next few weeks, eligible municipalities will receive $233 million in one-time transition assistance. This includes:
- - -
$100 million to reconcile to 2003 costs; $a million to reconoile to estimated 2604 costs;; and $98 million in transition assistance to ensure a manageable pace of change for municipalities in the move to the new OMPF.
The one-time 2003 and 2004 reconciliation payments will be the final close-out adjustments under the old Community Reinvestment Fund.
The Deputy Ministers of Finance and Municipal Affairs and Housing will provide Municipal Treasurers and Clerk-Treasurers with their 2005 OMPF notifications, inciuding details of any one-time transition and reconciliation payments, under separate cover. The Deputies’ correspondence will also include a detailed technical manual outlining haw each component of the OMPF allocation is calculated,
In the interim, we have enclosed a brochure, the Ontario Municipar Partnership Fund, to assist you in sharing information with your council members.
We believe that the new OMPF represents another important miiestone in the relationship between the Province and our municipal partners. Combined with our previously announced commitments, which include an increase ta the province’s share of Public Health costs to 75 per cent by 2007 and delivering $$SO million in gas tax revenues over three years, the new OMPF will suppart a significant strengthening of our communities.
Yours sincerely,
enclosure
APPENDIX B
2005 OMPF Allocation Plus Phase-in AdJustment
3ntario Municipal Pattnershlp Fund 2005 OMPF Allocation
$6,559,000
City of Kingston
$4,680,661
$130,929
$1,747,390
$6,559,0001 IA. CRF Payments in 2004 (2005 Stable Funding Guarantee)
I. Projected Public Health Net Benefit 2. 2005 Gas Tax Allocation
$96,136 $1,153,740
1. Social Programs Grant
2. Equalization Grant
a. Assessment Equalization b. Farmland and Managed Forest
3. Northern and Rural Communlties Grant
a. Rural Communities b. Northern Communities c. Northern and Rural Social Programs d. Stabilization
4. Police Services Grant
5. Phase-in Adjustment
Stable Funding Guarantee Adjustment
IC. 2005 increase over 2004 CRF Payments I
\E. Total 2005 OMPF Allocation with Public Health and Gas Tax $7,808,8771
$1,249,6771 IF. Total 2005 Increase over 2004 CRF Payments (Total 2005 indudes Public Health and Gas Tax)
$4,647,390 )G.One-time Funding I
1. 2003 Reconciliation 2. 2004 Reconciliation 3. Stable Funding Guarantee One-time Payment (included in 65) 4. Remainder of Transition Funding
$1,457,900 $1,747,3901 $1,693,000 - I
$1,497,390
IH. Key OMPF Data Inputs I
1. Total Municipal Social PrOgram COS& 2. Households 3. Total Assessment per Household 4. Policing Costs per Household 5. Rural and Small Community Measure
$26,997,112 51,108
$218,326 $366
11.1%
. 83
CITY OF KINGSTON REPORT TO COUNCIL
I ReportNo.: 05-140 I
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
Mayor and Members of Council
Denis Leger, Acting Chief Administrative Officer
Gerard Hunt, Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services
DATE OF MEETING: 2005-04-19
SUBJECT: 2005 Operating Budget Amendments
RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the 2005 Operating Budget be amended as follows:
Agencv Transfers a) Cataraqui Regional Conservation Authority increase by $47,976 with funding from the
Working Fund Reserve in the amount of $15,000 and $32,976 from an increase in the general tax levy
b) KFL&A Public Health increase by $13,239 with funding from an increase in the general tax levy
c) Kingston Access Services increase by $25,000 with funding from an increase in the general tax levy
d) Frontenac County/Land Ambulance increase by $743,940 with funding from an increase in the general tax levy
e) Frontenac County/Fairmount Home increase by $186,6 10 with funding from an increase in the general tax levy
Provincial Grants The OMPF budget estimate be reduced by $1,405,947, offset by an increase in the transfer from the LSR Reserve $855,947, and an increase in the general levy in the amount $550,000.
Other a) The payment-in-lieu of property taxes estimate be increased by $400,000. b) The costs associated with the Brownfields Program in the amount of $1 10,000 be added
with funding from the working fund reserve. c) The 2004 net fire deficits by area be included with fundinghenefit by area tax levy.
2) That a by-law be presented to amend the 2005 Operating Budget.
3) That the 2005 property tax rates be established considering the amended budget requirements.
84
CQUNCII, MEETINGI 2 AI% 1 9 '05 REPORT TO COUNCIL
- Page 2 - Report No: 05-140
ORIGIN/PURPOSE :
This report is before Council to introduce a budget amendment for agencies which were unable to submit budget requests prior to this date. In addition, the recent announcement on the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund has caused budget implications that need to be addressed for the 2005 budget.
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:
Operatinp Budpet Impact Council adopted the 2005 Operating Budget by-law as amended in the amount of $228,334,470. The impact of the amounts recommended in this report increases the net operating budget and taxation requirement by $1,347,070.
The following table summarizes the budget amendments recommended in this report.
Net budget amendment Jdaz&zQ
- Page 3 -
Report No: 05-140
Agencies and Boards
Council approved the Operating Budget for 2005 in December 2004, and agreed that a budget amendment would be forthcoming once the agencies and boards submitted their budget requests. The approved budget included an increase to a maximum of 2.5% for the agencies and boards which were unable to submit requests. This report reflects increases over the 2.5% threshold.
The following table reflects the final requests fiom agencies and boards for 2005 with comparative information for 2004.
Agencies and Boards Kingston Police Services Board KFP Library Board Kingston Access Services - Operating Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority KFL&A Health Unit County of Frontenac - Land Ambulance County of Frontenac - Fairmount Home Kingston Access Services - Capital KEDCO County of Frontenac - Arterial Roads
m 20.10 4.04 1.28 0.69 2.97 4.93 2.01 0.26 2.30 0.61
19.02 3.94 1.22 0.64 2.88 4.09 1.78 0.26 2.30 0.61 .73
1.08 0.1 0 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.85 0.23
- %
5.7% 2.5% 4.5% 7.6% 3.0%
20.7% 13.1%
o.oo/o 0.0% 0.0%
Attached as appendices to this report are the requests received from external agencies.
Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) As Council is aware, the OMPF has recently been announced. The impact of this announcement has been presented to Council in Report 05-126 (April 19, 2005). The budget amendments in this report are based on the mitigation strategy recommended in Report 05-126.
- Other
a) PIL Revenue Adjustment When the Operating Budget was approved in November 2004, an estimate for PIL revenue was included at $14.3M. Since that time, additional information has been received from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) which allows us to increase that estimate by $0.4M to $14.7M. It is appropriate to include this adjustment at this time as an amendment.
b) Brownfield Program Implementation The City's Community Improvement Plan (CIP) has recently been approved. In accordance with Council's direction, the implementation costs associated with the plan require a budget amendment in the amount of $1 10,000 with funding from the Working Fund Reserve. In accordance with the plan, the Working Fund Reserve will be reimbursed from incremental tax financing sources as projects are completed.
86
Report No: 05-140
- Page 4 -
c) Fire Deficit - 2004 In accordance with the policy on fire area rates, deficits or surpluses arising from operations in a previous year are budgeted for and levied in the following year. The 2004 year-end final results reflect a deficit in the central and west with a small surplus in the east. These amounts are reflected in the tax levy by area for fire.
In addition, the Police Services Board has informed the City that due to changes introduced at the provincial level, the Option 4 program must be discontinued. In discussions with Kingston Police, we have concluded not to amend the overall budget as it is likely that provincial offences fines will increase, which may offset revenue shortfalls in the Police budget.
Tax Rates
At the time the 2005 budget was finalized and approved in December 2004, the projected increase in the City's share of taxes was 5.1% on average. Since that time, the Province has confirmed that the residential education tax rate is unchanged from 2004 at 0.0029600. That, coupled with the increase levy requirements and the tax ratio reduction approved by Council for the Industrial Tax Class at the April 5, 2005 meeting, results in an overall increase of 4.9% on the average tax bill. Tax rates vary by area based on the policies endorsed by Council for area rated services. The following is the 2005 residential tax bill example on an average property assessment.
Residential Bill Example If Assessment = $1 81,226
EXISTING POLICY/BY-LAW: Operating Budget By-law No. 2004-340
LINK TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: NIA
COUNCIL N E E T I N G ~ 2 APH 1 9 ’05 REPORT TO COUNCIL Report No: 05-140
- Page 5 -
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The financial considerations are generally described in the body of this report. Council has endorsed a multi-year operating budget strategy and has given direction on tax level increases. The projected increase for 2006 is an average of 5% with the next three years at 3.5%. If the City is to achieve these levels and control increases, there will need to be a concerted effort to control spending levels. It is recommended that Council provide direction to agencies and boards for the 2006 budget in the near future.
CONTACTS: Gerard Hunt, Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services Shawna Guernsey, Operating Budget Analyst
546-4291, Ext. 2205 546-4291, Ext. 2366
DEPARTMENTWOTHERS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED: Agencies and Boards Chief Administrative Officer
NOTICE PROVISIONS: Pursuant to Section 291 of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, and the City of Kingston’s Notice By- law 2003-15, the following steps have been taken to ensure compliance:
Placed on the City’s website and advertised in the Kingston Whig Standard on Monday, April 4,2005, thereby giving any member of the public an opportunity to be heard on matters being deliberated.
APPENDICES: Appendix A - Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Appendix B - KFL&A Health Unit Appendix C - Kingston Access Services Appendix D - County of Frontenac - Fairmount Home and Land Ambulance Appendix E - A By-law to Amend By-law 2004-340 - The 2005 Operating Budget
GerardHunt Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services
Acting Chief Administrative Officer
8 8
E005 Drafi Municipal Levy - C i t y of Kingston
1 - Corporate Services, Watershed Management and Conservation Services 2 - Conservation Area Operations and Programming* (including Little Cataraqui
APPENDIX A
$376,694.54 $ 1 1 0,354.92
1. I
Project 6 - Rural/Agricultural Water Program Project 10 - Section 28 Regulations Update - Fill Line Mapping Revisions Project 14 - Wetland Education Project Projects 18 and 23 - Drinking Well Compliance and Furnace Oil Tank
$6,008.98 $9,013.47 $3,004.49
'$7,2 10.78
Creek Conservation Area, Cataraqui Marshlands, other conservation areas, forest tracts, boat launches and natural heritage areas); CRCA maintenance centre and all vehicles and equipment
Replacement
Total Municipal Levy $69 2,75 9.9 6
Data Management, GIs; Special Employment Projects
*LemOine Point Conservation Area operations, maintenance and capital costs are assigned 100 per cent to the City of Kingston. Parrott's Bay operations, maintenance and capital costs are assigned 100 per cent to Loyalist Township.
January 28, 2005
Al'P'tNUlX A
CATARAQ U I REG I ON CONS E RVAT IO N AUT H 0 RITY . . - . . I
1641 Perth Road, PO. Box 1 G O Glenburnie, Ontario KOH 1 SO Phone: (GI 3 ) 546-4228 Fax (GI 3) 547-6474 Email: [email protected] Web Site: www.cataraquiregion.on.ca
January 3,2005
VIA FAX AND MAIL
Cynthia Beach Commissioner of Planning and Development Services The City of Kingston 2 16 Ontario Street Kingston, ON K7L 223
;.. .
Dear Commissioner Beach:
RE: Regulatory Floodplain Mapping for the Little Cataraqui Creek Request for Support - Proposed Update in 2005
The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) and the City of Kingston share an interest in protecting public health and safety and in avoiding property damage through floodplain management, as intended by the Provincial Policy Statement. I am writing to request City partnership in a study to update flood risk mapping for Little Cataraqui Creek, a key component of floodplain management.
Due to development activity and improvements in modeling techniques, CRCA and City staff are aware that the existing mapping of the regulatory (1:lOO year) floodplain for Little Cataraqui Creek may no longer be represented accurately. This situation compromises our ability to provide assurance that development along the Creek's three branches is protected from the hazard of flooding. An update of the floodplain mapping for the Creek is necessary to determine safe locations for development.
The Little Cataraqui Creek was last mapped in 1986. Since that date, significant development has occurred in all parts of the watershed, which is located within the City boundaries. This has resulted in changes to the Creck and its floodplain, including channelization, installation of culverts and stomwater management ponds, and the placement of fill in some locations in the floodplain. Despite our shared efforts to avoid the aggravation of flooding by development, the cumulative impact of these changes (over almost twenty years) must be considered.
In addition, floodplain modeling done in 1986 with the standard hydraulic model of the tinie, HEC-2, has improved in the intervening years to a new standard, HEC-RAS. HEC-RAS more accurately models the effect of culverts and structures in the floodplain. Initial cursory calculations for the Little Cataraqui Creek using HEC-RAS indicate that realistic floodplain elevations may be significantly higher than those indicated by the existing HEC-2 modeling.
A Member of thetonsermtionOntarioNetwork e 9 0
APPENDIX A
This Conservatioii Authority knows as a result that existing mapping for the Creek may underestimate the true flood risk.
hi addition to addressing flood risks for future development (e.g., Sail Point Plaza, Bayliill Maple Creek subdivision), accurate floodplain mapping would address concerns from existing residents. Resideiits in homes along the West Branch of the Little Cataraqui Creek, for example, have voiced their concern on several occasions, both to the Authority and to their municipal councillor, George Beavis, about perceived changes in flood levels in the Creek.
In our opinion, updating the mapping of the Little Cataraqui Creek floodplain is critical to ensure public safety and avoid property damage. We trust that Council will agree, and respectfully request that the following motion be considered by the City. It was adopted in a similar form by the Full Authority Board of the Conservation Authority.
WHEREAS the City of Kingston and the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority recognize the importance of ensuring public safety from flooding through the maintenance of accurate floodplain maps;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in 2005 the City of Kingstoil and the CRCA initiate an updating of the floodplain mapping for Little Cataraqui.Creek as a joint project;
AND THAT the City of Kingston support this program and advise the CRCA that ' it is prepared to accept the special levy, estimated at $15,000, for undertaking the
floodplain mapping in 2005.
Thank you for your consideration of the above. Please give me a call if you have any questions, or if you wish to discuss the above matter in greater detail.
Respectfully,
h'lara Shaw w atershed Management Coordinator Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority
11 .
546-4228 ~ 2 2 8
Cc: Mark VanBuren, Stormwater Engineer, City of Kingston George Beavis, City Councillor, Lakeside District
I 91
DIX B
TO: Steve FOX, L & A. County Elizabeth Fulton, County of Frontenac Denis Leger, City of Kingston
FROM: Shannon Hegarty, Financial Officer
DATE: 17 February 2005
SUBJECT: 2005 Budget Approval
This will confirm that at it's meeting of 26 January 2005, the K.F. L. & A. Board of Health approved the 2005 budget. The total budget approved for 2005 was $9,99 1 , 189. This represents an increase of 13.73% over the budget for 2004. Most of this increase is in staffing to meet Mandatory Program Compliance and the escalations of current costs, such as salaries k d benefits.
You will recall that once the Board of Health approves the annual mandatory programs portion of the total budget, the municipalities'are advised of the cost of supporting the Health Unit and, at the same time, a request is made to the provincial Ministry of Health and Long Term Care to provide a grant in support of the budget. The expectation is that the province will provide such a grant to cover 55% of the annual budget. Consequently, the total municipal share for the 2005 budget year is $4,496,035. An increase of 2.35 % to the Municipalities due to the change in fhding from 50 % to 45%.
The amounts allocated to the respective funding municipalities are as follows:
Municipality Municipal Role - % Amount$ 2004 $
Lennox & Addington 35,629 21.30 $957,594 $ 935,542 Kingston 1 10,327 65.95 $2,965,239 $2,896,954 Frontenac 21,327 12.75 $ 573,202 $ 560,002
These amounts are exclusive of other Health Unit programmes that are 100% funded by the provincial Ministry of Health and Long Term Care and other sources. For information purposes, funding for these programmes amounts to an additional $3,654,719 ($2,808,691 in 2003).
I have also attached the summary sheets for this year's budget. I trust that this letter provides the information you require for your budgeting purposes. Should you require
KINGSTON, FRONTENAC AND LENNOX & ADDINGTON PUBLIC HEALTH Branch Offices Main Office
221 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, Ontario K7M 1V5 +++ Cloyne Tel: (613) 336-8989 Fax:(613) 336-0522 Tel: (613) 549-1232 1-800-267-7875 Sharbot Lake Tel: (613) 279-2151 Fax: (613) 279-3997 Fax: (613) 549-7896 www.healthunit.on.ca Napanee Tel: (613) 3543357 Fax: (613) 354-6267 - 9 2
APPE
COUF,lClL MEETrMGl 2 Ak'H 1 9 '05 any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 549-1232 Ext. 242 or Tony Button at ext. 265.
Yours truly,
Shannon Hegarty Financial Officer
C.C. Dr. I. Gemmill T. Button
MANDATORY HFAI TH PROGRAMS
CHRONIC DISEASE & INJURY PREVENT1 Salaries and Benefits Operating
N: ADULT H
CHRONIC DISEASE & INJURY PREVENTION: SCHOOL HEALTH & TOBACCO Salaries and Benefits Operating
FAMILY HEALTH Salaries and Benefits Operating
DENTAL PROGRAM Salaries and Benefits Operating Children In Need of Treatment
INFECTIOUS DISEASE PREVENTION Salaries and Benefits Operating Needle Exchange Program Transfer
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Salaries and Benefits Operating West Nile Virus
TOTAL MANDATORY PROGRAMS
4LTH 1,005,619
26,550 1,032,169
1,437,517 55.100
1,084,480 47.975
322,048 10,650
2 20,000
927,269 74,103
159.396
901,713 11,000
115.501
1,492,617
1 , I 32,455
552,698
1 ,I 60,768
1,028,214
$ 6,398,921
PHRED Salaries and Benefits Operating
ADMlNlSTRATlVF FXPFNDITURFS
OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH Salaries and Benefits Operating Program Planning & Evaluation
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Salaries and Benefits Operating
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
TOTAL PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVF BOARn COSTS
Legal Fees Board Honoraria Board Conferences Board Travel Staff Association Donations Remembrances & Annual Meeting
552,076 24,777 576,853
395,745 14,538
1 16,967
1,015,385 361,700
TOTAL BOARD COSTS
527,250
1,377,085
1,904,335 *
10,000 7,000 3,600 2,000 1,750 5,000 5,000
9 5
APPENDIX B
ADMINISTRATI VE COSTS
Professional Fees Audit Fees Bank & Payroll Fees Insurance Travel Postage Telephone Office Equipment Rental Office Equipment Maintenance Rental of Space Association & Membership FeeslSubscriptions Staff Development Courier ~
Uti I ities Building & Grounds Maintenance Building Occupancy
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
J FSS: OTHER RFVFNUF
Interest Earned GST Rebate Ontario Works Administrative Fee
TOTAL OTHER REVENUE
TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET
5,000 10,000 6,000
35,000 165,000
25,000 62,000
7,500 30,000 44,000 22,100
7,500 10,000 77,300 48,920
631,410
7.186.730
(25,000) (65,000) (20,000)
I1 1O.OOOL
9.991.189
TOTAL BUDGET $9.991.189
APPENDIX C
March 11 2005
Mr. Gerard Hunt Manager of Finance City of Kingston
By email
Re: 2005 KAS Operating Budget
Dear Mr. Hunt,
This letter is in regard to the Kingston Access Services 2005 Operating Budget. An item that we have relied on for many years as one of our sources of revenue, is the PST rebates. As you know, those rebates were discontinued in late 2004, without any advance notice.
As a result, our 2005 Operating Budget which was presented and approved by City council prior to this announcement had a revenue line item of $25,000 for PST rebates. We now know we will not receive this amount from the Provincial government, thus creating a significant shortfall. We will not be able to make this up in other areas of our budget, short of service cuts.
We would respectfully ask that consideration be given to increase our operating budget by $25,000 to offset this loss of revenue, and assist us in delivering the level of service to our passengers that we had budgeted for in 2005.
We thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Lou Carpentier Executive Director
c: KAS Board of Directors
APPENDIX D
Dcnis Legu Acling Chief Administrative Officer City of Kingston 2 16 Ontario Strect Kingston, OY K7L 223
Re: County of Frontenac Budget - Fairmount Home and Land Ambulance
Dear Mr. Leger:
The Connty of Frontenac passed i ts budgct on March 2, 2005, By-law 07-2005.
That budget requires S1,293,059 From the City of Kingston for the 2005 Fairmount Home operatjng costs and S712,503 rcpresenting the City of Kingston share of the debenture for the redevclopment.
Thc budget requirerncnt firom the City of Kingston for 2005 Land &nbulance servicc is 54,93333 3.
Si TI ce re1 y
M k a n VanBruinessen Treasurer
ut- .*&&
C O U N T Y O F F R O N T E N A C 2069 8arccrsca P,oad, Glenburnie, Ontario, Cmada KOH I SO r 61 3,348,9400 f 6 13,548,8460 wwwfrontenaccounty.ca
9 8
0 m C Q)
C 0
0 )r C
c,
lt * c,
a 0
3 v)
Q) rn m 3
c,
m E
a 0 I C c,
E L .I m L v) 0 0 cv
r
W r- ". 8 3
r 0
P iF 'F 'E 'I
APPENDIX
v) 0 0 cv
L
S
FA
ill
m $9
?
d
0 0 0 0 2: T q
3 E 9 N
d 8
I- N
W : c? 3
I
I
.
APPENDIX E
BY=LAW NO. 2005=XXX
A BY=LAW TO AMEND BY=LAW NO. 2004.340 “A BY=LAW TO ADOPT THE 2005 OPERATING BUDGET”
PASSED:
The Council of The Corporation of the City of Kingston hereby enacts as follows:
By-Law No. 2004-340 of The Corporation of the City of Kingston entitled, “A By-law To Adopt The
The Municipally-managed General Municipal Operating Budget be increased from $227,012,400 to
1, 2005 Operating Budget”, is hereby amended as follows:
1 .I $228,334,470 as per attached Schedule A.
2.
GIVEN FIRST AND SECOND READING
GIVEN THIRD READING AND FINALLY PASSED
This By-Law shall come into force and take effect on the date of its passing
CITY CLERK MAYOR
1 101
City of Kingston General Municipal Budget Summary
Department Level (Gross) &xJ~crL MEETING^ 2 APR 1 9 '05
3rd Quarter Budget to Budget Variance Variance
I IMayor & Council Exoenditure 593.938 428.972 -164.966 607,983 14,045
ICommunIty Services Expenditure 97,062,987 70,946,438 -26.1 16,549 99,112,277 2,049,290 I
I " Expenditure 12,012,350 9,658,196 -2,354,154 12,233,157 220,8071
49 813 053 36 265 256 -13,547,797
IFiscal Services I I Expenditure 10,576,831 11,649,847 1,073,016 11,907,924 1,331,0931
I Illowntown Business Association Exoenditure 885.150 857.321 904.185 19.035
Expenditure 221,353,018 172,769,193 -48,583,825 228,334,470 6,981,454)
Taxation Revenue -1 14,107,545 -84,652,522 29,455,023 -1 22,978,610 -8,871,065 PIL'S -13.931,343 -10,388,596 3,542,747 -1 4.700,OOO -768,657 SUPPS -1,862,001 0 1,862,001 -1,050,000 812,001 Special Charges -100,000 0 100,000 -100,000 0 Write-offs (shown with fiscal services above) 0 0 Tax Assistance Programs (shown with fiscal services above) 0 0 Total Taxation -130,000,889 -95,041,118 34,959,771 -138,828,610 -8,827,721
Note: Expenditures for the Equipment Provision (Fleet Division) are reflected as net after recoveries on this schedule.
Schedule A
p
7 i
p i
13/04/2005
-I
Page 1 of 22
CITY OF KINGSTON REPORT TO COUNCIL
I ReportNo.: 05-107 I
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
Mayor and Members of Council
Denis Leger, Acting Chief Administrative Officer
Gerard Hunt, Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services
DATE OF MEETING: 2005-04-1 9
SUBJECT: KEDCO Funding 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Council receive the funding impact analysis resulting fiom the Council-approved 2001 KEDCO funding model.
2. That Council continue to require KEDCO to submit an annual activity report that analyzes and measures a number of economic indicators;
ORIGIN/PURPOSE :
The purpose of this report is to provide the fourth annual financial impact analysis and results for the additional funding policy that was approved by Council in 2001.
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:
1. 2001 Funding Model
As part of the 2001 Operating Budget review, the CAO presented a funding model at Council’s request, as outlined in Report CW033 on April 24,2001, entitled KEDCO 2001-2002 Financing. That report dealt with KEDCO’s request for additional funding for 2001 and 2002, over their 2000 baseline annual funding of $800,000. Council approved the proposal and the resulting legal agreement was finalized on September 2 1,2001.
This agreement provided KEDCO with the ability to access up to $1,600,000 over a two-year period, with $650,000 in 2001 and $950,000 for 2002. The City would initially finance the advances through the municipality’s general borrowing capacity and eventually borrow the amounts externally with the cash flow funded by the Working Fund Reserve. When the new tax revenues derived from newly recognized commercial and industrial assessment become available,
103
Report No: 05-107
they would be allocated firstly to repay the reserve, and then after the loan is repaid, the excess would form part of the City’s general revenues.
The following were elements of the approved plan:
0
0
The initial loans of $650,000 in 2001 and $950,000 in 2002.
The repayment of the loans on a five-year amortization basis fiom 2003 to 2007.
The financial model for the necessary additional commercial and industrial taxes required until 2008 to repay the loans including its carrying costs with the internal rate of return set at 0%.
The first performance indicator to be used was the assessment for commercial and industrial generated above a baseline level of $630,000 (this was based on an analysis from past years’ level of activity).
The second performance indicator would be the specific new additional assessment generated as per the KEDCO business plan.
0
0
Although the agreement provided that if the revenues were not generated, the municipality would ultimately be responsible for the loan, the model had the advantage of tracking some of the performance indicators related to the City’s level of investment in KEDCO. Other than those specific financial indicators, other important indicators can be provided by KEDCO, such as the number of new jobs created and the resulting level of economic activity generated in the municipality.
2. 2004 Financial Review
A) Overall Industrial & Commercial Increased Tax Revenues
Significant growth occurred in the commercial and residential property classes during 2004 however, the net result for growth at year-end was reduced due to assessment appeal losses. Table 1 presents the net growth related assessment change fiom 2004 to 2005. The base year for determining market value for both 2004 and 2005 is June 30,2003. The total assessment growth for the year is 1.39%, with 1.22% growth in the commercial sector and a loss of 1.55% in the industrial sector. Some of the growth and loss is attributed to properties switching from one class to the other. Based on those numbers, we are experiencing taxation growth from new assessment of approximately $1 .OM in general municipal tax revenues for 2005, with a majority coming from the residential and commercial sectors.
It is important to note that there are properties which became occupied in 2004, that have not been assessed. These properties are not included in the growth calculations but will be factored in supplemental taxation estimates, and will be reflected as growth in the 2006 taxation year.
- Page 3 -
% Assessment Class 2004 CVA 2005 CVA Net Growth Change
Report No: 05-107
Municipal taxes "growth for 2005
budget"
Table 1 - 2004 Net Growth
Pipeline
Total Taxable
33,005,000 33,315,000 31 0,000 0.94% 3,070
7,766,203,639 7,874,215,410 108,011,771 1.39% $ 1,027,447
052,958 6,116,081 ,I 59 104,028,201 -. ....................................................... 1,012,735 ......................................................... ............
11,639,000 0 0 .................................................................. .............................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................
Multi-residential 507,533,090 499,554,840 -7,978,250 ................................................................................... -206,811 ............................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1,06431 ~ 6,856 1,077,476,036 12,959,180 ................................................................................... 260,457 .............................................. ................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................
102,715,574 101,119,852 -1,595,722 ................................................................................... -42,705 ........................................ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
3,828,730 33,814,523 -14,207 ............................................................. -35 ............................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1,215,000 302,569 33.1 6% ......................................................... 736 ......................................................................... ......................................................................................................................
Exempt
Total Assessment
1,210,290,215 1,200,535,275 -9,754,940 -0.81 %
9,358,005,024 9,447,083,025 89,078,001 0.95%
1 Payment in Lieu I 381,511,170 I 372,332,340 1 -9 ........................................... -2.41% " .................................................................................................. I ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ " .........................
Property Class 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
New assessment in the industrial and commercial sectors in 2004 produced taxation of approximately $530,000. As indicated previously, the growth is netted against assessment appeals and other changes, such as changes in property classification, changed assessment policy, vacancy and obsolescence factors.
Unfortunately, as indicated last year, the 2001 to 2004 trend continues to reflect a reduction on the mix of commercial and industrial assessment when compared to overall assessment. The comparison would be even worse if not for the additional businesses started over the last few years. Table 2 below summarizes this trend, showing the overall reduction of the total commercial and industrial assessment value relative to the total value for 2004 going to approximately 15%.
Table 2 - Industrial & Commercial (non-weighted) Share of Total Taxable Assessment
1 Commercial 16.04% 1 15.98% I 14.45% I ....................................................................................................................... I .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. I
Note: The ratio is the % of Commercial and Industrial assessment to the total taxable assessment.
1 o s
Report No: 05-107
- Page 4 -
B) Specific Industrial & Commercial Increase Municipal Tax Revenues
The second financial indicator to be reviewed is the new taxes created as a result of new assessment for specific commercial and industrial projects where KEDCO was involved.
We have calculated the real net municipal tax increases from baseline for the years 2001 to 2004. Those numbers include the following recognized businesses. Some of these buildings have now been built, some are under construction and others are only in the planning stages.
Startek ( both sites) Haakon Christmas Steel Fahri Holding, 3 1 Hyperion, Revenue Canada Jensen, L102 Hyperion Robinson, 1456 Centennial Signum, Lot 110-1 12 Hyperion Assurant (Tapp) 1287 Gardiners Road Magasec, 306 Dalton Tandiff, L357,719 Fortune Danton Machines, 7 13 Fortune Fuel Cell, 20 Binnington Court Timbren Industries Ferussi Dairy Autopak Frigit Transport Limited Scott Pressurized Washing Systems V. Marques Construction Ltd.
The following table presents the 2004 actual results and projected results for 2005 and the outgoing years to 2008 as originally planned.
Table 3 - 2004 Results and 2005 Projections
I KEDCO FINANCING I
.............................................................................................. KEDCO ..................................................................................................... 795,000 I ........... 795000 ! ......................................................... I 800,000 I Supplementary - Loan I 650,000 1 950,000 1 Total KEDCO-City 0 1 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................��
...Loan..rePa~ment..~!an ................... ............. ............ (3,!,!?!3) .... ........
2,390,000 1,600,000
.......................................................................................
......................................................................................
(359,560) (369,560) 1 (369,560) 1 1,883,033) ................................................................................................................................................................ .) ........... i ...................................
567,541 I 567,541 I 567,541 I .......... 567 541 I 3,127,135 ................................................................................................................................................ i .....................................................................
REPORT TO COUNCIL Report No: 05-107
- Page 5 -
In summary, the above results and projections reflect a positive return on the initial investment. Based on the above analysis, the loan contemplated in the original funding model will be repaid in 2006 and at that time, the full impact of resultant growth will be available to the general tax revenue base. It should be noted that while an amount above the baseline has not been meet, the City would have experienced significant assessment loss had the new industrial and commercial growth not been realized and as such, it is appropriate to recognize the return on investment as presented above.
There are a number of other benefits that were listed in the agreement in addition to local investment pertaining to job creation and community prosperity which is consistent with one of the priorities of the City's strategic plan. Those elements are to be reported by KEDCO.
3. Future Years
In 2004, Council approved an increase to $2.3M in fbnding to KEDCO as a three-year fimding model. KEDCO has indicated that it intends to return $200K of that amount following completion of its year-end financials. Council has approved $2.3M in funding for KEDCO in 2005.
The year 2004 was one of change in the KEDCO organization. It is the expectation that a close working relationship will exist between KEDCO and the City of Kingston to support the City in achieving its strategic objectives in economic prosperity, while working to align priorities of each organization. In determining the future relationship we must consider:
that, fundamentally, the City of Kingston requires, as part of its community and budget strategy, a focus on increasing investments in Kingston, creating jobs, and increasing the assessment base for commercial and industrial. the reality of the delay between the actual assessment growth results and the timing of the initial investment. the fact that an overall economic development business plan is not limited to immediate business recruitment but also to a number of other significant and important long-term activities that eventually provide the desired investment climate and structure. retention strategies are as important an element as promotion. tourism as an economic driver
In this report, we are not providing an analysis on the new funding model fiom 2004. We believe KEDCO is demonstrating its focus and, together with the City, will determine an appropriate accountability reporting practice for 2005. In consultation with KEDCO, the CAO will update Council later this year on the defined reporting practice for the future.
This report will serve as the final report of the results of the 2001 financing plan.
EXISTING POLICY/BY-LAW: Funding agreement dated September 12,2001,
FI 37
Report No: 05-107
LINK TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN:
This supplementary funding is directly linked to the Economic Prosperity strategy.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Incorporated into the respective annual budgets.
CONTACTS:
Gerard Hunt, Manager of Finance Pat Carrol, Manager of Taxation and Revenue
DEPARTMENTWOTHERS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED: KEDCO
NOTICE PROVISIONS: NIA
APPENDICES:
NIA
546-4291, Ext. 2205 546-4291, Ext. 2468
Gerard Hunt Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services
C$--.+! Denis Acting Chief Administrative Officer
3 os
I ReportNo.05-146 1
TO:
FROM: Mark Segsworth, Commissioner Operations
SUBMITTED BY:
PREPARED BY:
DATE OF MEETING: April 19,2005
SUBJECT:
Denis Leger, Acting Chief Administrative Officer
Barclay Mayhew, Manager Properties Division
Lorraine Thibadeau, Properties Division - Leasing
Hangar No.3 - Kingston (Norman Rogers) Airport
RECOMMENDATION: THAT lease negotiations with the Athletic Club of Kingston for Hangar No.3 at the Kingston (Norman Rogers) Airport conclude; and
FURTHER that Council direct Staff to issue a Request for Proposal to Purchase, with the sale of the hangar to be conditional on the proponent(s) and the City entering into a lease for the land itself; and
FURTHER that all conditions of the sale of the hangar and lease of the land be in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.
ORIGIN/PURPOSE : The intention of this report is to bring negotiations with the Athletic Club of Kingston for lease of space at Hangar No. 3 to a conclusion. In addition, a determination on the ultimate disposition of Hangar No. 3 is required.
OPTION S/DISCUSSION: At the Council meeting of September 7,2004, the following motion was approved;
“That s tafbe directed to enter into negotiations with the Athletic Club group for the lease of Hangar No. 3 ’’ Carried.
“That a by-law be presented to Council to declare Hangar No. 3 and 5 at the Kingston (Norman Rogers) Airport to be surplus to need. ” Carried.
Report No:05-146
- Page 2 -
At the Council meeting of November 16,2004, the following motion was also approved;
“That staffdetermine the costs of the necessary repairs to the roof of Hangar No. 3 and to do SO
without removing the inner lining of the roo$ and
That staff continue to negotiate with the Athletic Club of Kingston: and
That staff look at the possibility of disposal of this building to the Athletic Club of Kingston and whether that will negate the City’s liability. ” Carried.
Staff and representatives of the Athletic Club of Kingston (ACK) have met on several occasions with a view to establishing general concurrence around the condition of the asset and its related financial implications. To support these efforts additional assessments as to the structural integrity of Hangar No. 3 were solicited and shared with the ACK.
Staff have been guided by the principle of full cost recovery; anything less than that impacts negatively on the financial performance of Kingston (Norman Rogers) Airport. In addition, the structural up-keep of the asset would remain with the City as opposed to transferring this responsibility to the tenant. This approach was taken as it will lead to a more sustainable management of our assets.
Negotiations have been constructive with the ACK refining the financial terms of their proposal to better reflect the City’s principles. In the end the ACK has chosen not to pursue a lease and instead has expressed an interest in purchasing the hangar and entering investment into a land lease with the City.
Estimates indicate that the hangar requires in the order of $300,000 to invest initially before it could be considered ready for occupancy. In addition, further analysis and refinement have led to a figure of approximately $35,000 to be contributed annually to capital replacement.
Considering the budget constraints and priorities as identified during the budget process, it is suggested that such an expenditure on a hangar would not be in the City’s best interests. That leaves four options:
1) Sell the building and enter into a land lease. In addition to monies derived from the sale itself, this action would transfer the capital burden to the purchaser; generate property taxes; and generate rent from the land lease.
2 ) Demolish the building at a one-time cost estimated currently at $1 50,000.00 - $200,000.00. The land would then be available for future airport expansion or development of air-related businesses.
COUNCFI- MEETINGI 2 AM 1 9 '05 REPORT TO COUNCIL Report No:05-146
- Page 3 -
3) Maintain an empty hangar and bear the burden of operating costs while generating no income whatsoever. This is not deemed a viable option and Staff, therefore, recommends that this option be discarded.
4) Effectively mothball the building for the present time. In this scenario, the building will continue to deteriorate to the point where there is no option but to demolish. In the meantime, the cost to demolish escalates, no property taxes are generated, and the City assumes a high risk management issue by allowing a building which is vacant and less than safe to stand on its property. Staff, therefore, recommends that this option also be discarded.
Having given due consideration to all of the options, Staff is recommending the sale of the hangar since, as evidenced by the interest of groups within the City, there appears to be an identifiable need for a facility of this type and size.
At least one other sports group has expressed an interest in purchasing the hangar. It is, therefore, recommended that if the building is to be sold that the transaction be open to the public by way of Request for Proposal to Purchase.
EXISTING POLICYBY-LAW: n/a
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: n/a
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: If the property were sold, in addition to the sale price, the sale of the hangar would trigger property taxes; the land lease would generate rental income; and the operating and capital costs are shifted from the City with the transfer of ownership.
Demolition at this time is estimated at $150,000.00 - $200,000.00 and will continue to escalate. If the building is not to be sold, then demolition at this time would save the City an untold expense in the future.
CONTACTS: Barclay Mayhew, Manager Properties Division Lorraine Thibadeau, Properties Division - Leasing
546-4291, Ext. 1233 546-429 1, Ext. 1602
DEPARTMENTWOTHERS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED: d a
NOTICE PROVISIONS: n/a
Report No:05-146
- Page 4 -
APPENDICES: n/a
Mark Segsworth, Corrd$ioner Operat=
D e n h e r Acting Chief Administrative Officer
