Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Tax-supported Operating Strategy
2015 proposed Operating Budget and Forecast
2015 Operating Budget
Corporate Services
IT Strategy Plan Q1. page 1
Salary Gapping and Salary Gapping Reserve Q2. page 3
Finance Purchased Service Budget Q3. page 4
Legal and Realty Services – Purchased Services Q4. page 5
City Clerks Purchased Services Q5. page 6
Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services
Clair/Laird – Hanlon Interchange Project Q6. page 7
Committee of Adjustment Q7. page 8
Implications of Eliminating Downtown
Community Improvement Q8. page 8
Multi-res Garbage pick-up Q9. page 11
Public Services
Public Works Purchased Services Q10. page 13
Parks and Recreation Purchased Services Q11. page 13
Corporate Building Maintenance Q12. page 15
Guelph Transit Purchased Services Q13. page 16
Transit Fare Increases Q14. page 16
Ridership Revenue Changes Q15. page 20
Fare Subsidies Q16. page 21
Transit Service for Sundays and Holidays Q17. page 21
Transit Service Reductions Q18. page 22
Downtown Fire Hall Staff Q19. page 23
Historical Levels of Municipal Subsidy Q20. page 25
General Questions
Use of External Consultants Q21. page 27
FTE Positions-Legislated and Potential Risks to the City Q22. page 31
Tax Supported FTE’s – Recommended Positions Q23. page 35
Corporate Asset Management FTE versus Consultant Q24. page 37 Proposed New Positions Q25. page 38
New FTEs Q26. page 40
Departmental Increases Q27. page 42
Impact of adding $250K to the library reserve Q28. page 42
City’s Reserves and Reserve Funds Q29. page 43
2016 City Budget Increase Q30. page 44
Public Health Budget Clarity Q31. page 44
% Municipal Tax Burden Q32. page 46
Assessment Growth Q33. page 46
2015 Operating Budget
Corporate Services
IT Strategy Plan Q1.1 Provide a summary of the deferral and an explanation. Answered by Greg Clark, Senior Corporate Analyst, Capital Asset Planning, Corporate Services A1.1. The attached report addresses this question.
1
IT Submission during budget development 2015 2016 2017 Total
Projects For Approval Proposed Proposed
IT0024 IT STRATEGIC PLAN 1,143.8 832.0 157.1 2,132.9
IT0027 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - LAND AMBUL 142.0 103.3 19.5 264.8
IT0028 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - POA 15.7 11.4 2.2 29.3
IT0029 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - BUILDING 46.3 33.7 6.4 86.4
IT0030 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - WATER 48.3 35.2 6.6 90.1
IT0031 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - WASTEWATER 59.8 43.5 8.2 111.5
Total IT STRATEGIC PLAN 1,455.9 1,059.1 200.0 2,715.0
Proposed budget for Council consideration 2015 2016 2017 Total
Projects For Approval Proposed Proposed
IT0024 IT STRATEGIC PLAN 843.7 863.7 364.8 2,072.2
IT0027 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - LAND AMBUL 104.7 107.2 45.3 257.2
IT0028 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - POA APPROVED 11.6 11.9 5.0 28.5
IT0029 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - BUILDING APPROVED 34.2 35.0 14.8 84.0
IT0030 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - WATER APPROVED 35.6 36.5 15.4 87.5
IT0031 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - WASTEWATER APPROVED 44.1 45.2 19.1 108.4
Total IT STRATEGIC PLAN 1,074.0 1,099.4 464.4 2,637.8
Net Changes - IT Submission to Proposed 2015 2016 2017 Total
Projects For Approval Proposed Proposed
IT0024 IT STRATEGIC PLAN (300.1) 31.7 207.7 (60.7)
IT0027 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - LAND AMBUL (37.3) 3.9 25.8 (7.6)
IT0028 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - POA (4.1) 0.5 2.8 (0.8)
IT0029 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - BUILDING (12.1) 1.3 8.4 (2.4)
IT0030 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - WATER (12.7) 1.3 8.8 (2.6)
IT0031 IT STRATEGIC PLAN - WASTEWATER (15.7) 1.7 10.9 (3.1)
Total IT STRATEGIC PLAN (382.0) 40.4 264.4 (77.2)
The net impact to the IT Strategic Plan over the three year budget is a reduction of $77,200. This funding was
requested to undertake the assessment for Phase 2 of the Corporate Technology Strategic Plan. This funding
has been moved to 2018, at which time is expected all current & proposed work will be completed.
The delaying of funding ($382k) from 2015 to 2016 & 2017 is due to two factors; current status of already
approved funding for the project and overall City constraints on capital funding. As at August 31, 2014 it was
estimated there would be $300-400,000 in unspent funds. Based on this and the need to reduce budgets in
all areas in 2015, the IT department agreed to delay funding a portion of the initiatives until 2016-2017. It is
expected that this will have no impact on work already under way.
2
Salary Gapping and Salary Gapping Reserve
Q2.1. Can you explain the use of or provide the policy for the salary gapping reserve?
Q2.2. At the March 5, 2015 budget meeting, Council requested that details be posted regarding the
balance in the salary gapping reserve.
Answered by Sarah Purton, Manager, Financial Planning & Budgets,
Corporate Services
A2.1.The compensation reserve policy is the Council approved policy that provides details on the use
of the salary gapping reserve. Below is the content included in that policy related to this
reserve:
4.8 – HR Gapping Reserve #191
Background: This reserve was created to set aside savings created through payroll gapping
initiatives. It has been in use since 2008.
Purpose: The purpose of this reserve is to set aside savings created through gapping and use
these funds for compensation related expenditures including the annual cost of the
accommodated staffing program. As the purpose of this reserve over-laps with the HR
contingency reserve #207, staff is proposing to consolidate these two reserves into one “HR
Gapping / Contingency Reserve”.
Performance Measurement Guideline: Staff recommends that a reserve balance of $1,000,000
would sufficiently cover any unforeseen employee compensation related costs in a year.
Reporting Requirements: A report on the fiscal year ending balance and the funding status of
this reserve is required annually to Council. Inclusion of this information within the annual
report of the consolidated financial statements is satisfactory to meeting this requirement.
Approved Reserve Transactions:
• All salary gapping savings as accumulated monthly are to be contributed to this reserve
• All positive / negative variances related to the accommodated staffing program in any given
year will be funded to/from this reserve
• There are no other pre-approved reserve transactions for this reserve. All transfers out of
this reserve for one-time compensation related expenditures will be approved by Council
during the annual budget process, or through a separate report submitted during the year.
3
Designated Responsibility: It is the responsibility of the Treasurer (or designated staff) to
ensure all reserve transactions are complete and in compliance with this policy and to prepare
the annual required reporting for Council.
A2.2.
Finance Purchased Service Budget
Q3.1. The purchased services budget for Finance is projecting a 75.1% increase for 2015 ($64,228K).
Could I please request a more detailed summary of these increases?
Justification cites additional admin support and increase in training expenses. Could you
please provide details on training? Is this training legislated or discretionary.
Answered by Sarah Purton, Manager, Financial Planning and Budget Services,
Corporate Services
A3.1. The purchased services budget for Finance is increasing by $64,228 or 75.1% due to:
• Spending for temporary agencies for contract administrative support increased by $55,000.
This aligns with 2014 spending and has been outlined in the 2014 Variance Reports.
• Funding for Phone System Software to increase customer service in the Taxation and
Revenue area was added in 2015. This is estimated to cost $5,000 and is will be a one-time
cost for 2015.
• Increased funding of $4,200 for training registration and related costs such as mileage and
accommodations ($2,800) and corporate memberships ($1,400). The increase to the
training budget for the department is primarily due to the increase amount of money
available for training all staff in the Revenue and Taxation division to levels that accurately
reflect the cost of the planned training. Previously, not all staff had been budgeted for in
the division’s training budget.
4
With respect to training, the Finance department budgets for training costs associated with 33
union and non-union staff. This includes registration fees, mileage, meals, accommodations
and any fares related to training activities. Of those 33 staff, more than half of the staff are
designated professionals in their field (e.g. designated accountants) which is what the majority
of the department’s training costs are related to. All designated staff are required to acquire a
certain number of professional development hours on an annual basis to maintain their
designations. In Finance it is generally expected that the employer, when hiring an employee
with professional qualifications, will provide the financial support required to meet the
development hour requirements. Without this support, it can be difficult to attract and retain
staff.
In summary, in addition to training being a mandatory requirement of most professional
designations, it is also required to continue to remain apprised of legislative changes, best
practices, provide our citizens with the appropriate service and employee engagement.
Legal and Realty Services – Purchased Services
Q4.1. The puchased services budget for Legal and Realty Services is projecting an 11% increase for
2015 ($37,600K). Could I please request a more detailed summary of these increases?
Justification states software services related to legal file management software THIS YEAR. Can I
assume this is a one time cost and next year it will be removed/reduced to 2014 $$?
Answered by Donna Jaques, City Solicitor, Office of the Chief Adminstrative Officer
A4.1. The details of Legal and Realty Services are shown below:
*The Internal Auditor conducted a review of Legal Services in the fall of 2012. One of the
recommendations from that review was that a file/knowledge management system be
5
implemented to increase efficiency and reduce risk. Legal Services also identified an ongoing
issue with managing the City's realty assets and related agreements due to an outdated and
non-supported database currently used and no corporate contract management system. In
conjunction with Corporate Property, it was determined a system to manage these assets
would increase efficiency and reduce risk.
Legal Services and IT Services reviewed available options that would meet our needs. It was
determined that the only product that met all our needs and the technical requirements was
Legal Suite. Legal Suite has provided a number of demonstrations and has worked with IT
Services to address all technical concerns. While the product was offered in both an onsite and
cloud solution, IT advised that only the cloud solution could be purchased.
The cost of the software has been added to Legal Services' base budget for 2015. The increase
cost is an annual fee for the provision of cloud based services and not one time cost but
recurring fee to maintain the software.
City Clerks Purchased Services
Q5.1. The purchased services budget for the Clerks Office is projecting a 54.7% increase for 2015
($16,400K). Could I please request a more detailed summary of these increases?
Answered by Stephen O’Brien, City Clerk and Tina Agnello, City Clerk, City Clerk’s Office A5.1. The purchased services budget increase of $16,400 for the Office of the Clerk is for catering
expenditures as follows:
$10k Municipal election – to correct a $10k recovery budgeted in the prior year in error. The
correction shows as a year over year increase to this budget line of $10k. In reality we are
zeroing out this budget line (-10+10=0)
$6.4k Office of the Clerk – covers the food ordered for Council in advance of their meetings and
standing committees. Increase to budget is necessary based on historical actuals.
6
Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise Services
Clair/Laird – Hanlon Interchange Project
Q6.1. Provide a summary of the budget, expenditures and funding for the Clair/Laird – Hanlon
Interchange project.
Answered by Greg Clark, Senior Corporate Analyst, Capital Asset Planning Corporate Services
A6.1. The following report addresses this request.
RD0267 Clair/Laird & Hanlon Interchange
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Budget (A) 500,000 6,500,000
10,400,000
17,400,000
Actual Expenditures
115,744
1,272,868 193,871
1,582,484
Payments to MTO
4,016,903
5,272,676
5,272,676
-
14,562,254
Accrued Expenditures
14,562,254 (4,016,903) (5,272,676) (5,272,676)
-
Total Cost (B) 115,744
15,835,122
193,871 - -
-
16,144,738
Debt Issue (C) 5,767,180 7,732,820
3,900,000
17,400,000
A - The budget for this project has partially been approved in 2013 and 2014 (total $7 million) and the final amount of $10.4 million is included for 2015. B - The agreement to pay the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) for the work completed is the majority of the expense in this project. In December 2013, it was agreed that the City would pay the MTO $14,562,254 in three installments from 2014 to 2016. The expense was accrued for in 2013 and the actual payments will occur as agreed to. As each payment is made a portion of the accrual is reversed. C - The issuance of debt is scheduled to align with the timing of payments as well as the overall City's need for cash flow related to debt funded projects. The total budget exceeds the total costs incurred to date, and debt will only be issued to cover actual expenditures.
7
Committee of Adjustment
Q7.1. The position of Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment had an assistant. When
the Secretary Treasurer’s position ended the Committee of Adjustment was moved from
Building to Clerks, the position disappeared. It is being requested but not funded. Where did
the funds go for the previous Assistant?
Answered by Stephen O’Brien, City Clerk and Tina Agnello, City Clerk,
City Clerk’s Office
A7.1. When the Committee of Adjustment function transferred from the Building Services
department to the City Clerk’s Office, the full resources were not completely transferred over.
When housed within Building Services, the Committee of Adjustment function was staffed by
one full-time dedicated position (Assistant to the Secretary Treasurer for the Committee of
Adjustment) and one other position (Secretary Treasurer for Committee of Adjustment /
Administrative Assistant to the Chief Building Official) that shared some of the Committee of
Adjustment workload along with other administrative responsibilities. When transitioned to
the City Clerk’s Office, the budget for one position alone was transferred. As such, the funds
for the other position stayed within Building Services.
Implications of Eliminating Downtown Community Improvement
Q8.1. What are the implications of eliminating the downtown Community Improvement Plan (CIP)
Funding in 2015?
Answered by Ian Pannabaker, Corporate Manager, Downtown Renewal and Corporate Services/ Finance staff A8.1. The following appendix addresses the implications.
8
2015-03-16
APPENDIX CITY OF GUELPH
2015 Budget
ISSUE: Implications of Eliminating Downtown Community Improvement
Plan (CIP) Funding in 2015 DEPARTMENT: Downtown Renewal; Infrastructure, Development and Enterprise PREPARER: Ian Panabaker, Corporate Manager, Downtown Renewal
STAFF RESPONSE
Purpose This memo is to address implications of not funding the $130,000 grants portion of the Downtown Renewal Operating Budget.
Background Downtown CIP: Guelph, along with its competing municipalities, has been directed to take on significant growth management policies from the Province’s Places To Grow Act. Downtown Guelph has been identified as an Urban Growth Centre with significant population and employment targets. The community has developed and approved the Downtown Guelph Secondary Plan Official Plan Amendment as well as the Downtown Guelph Community Improvement Plan to facilitate the implementation of the long term major transformation of Guelph’s historic core into a much expanded, mixed-use, residential, commercial, entertainment and employment hub for the community. This concept is a major economic development objective identified in Prosperity 2020 as well as a major source of assessment growth for the City. The Downtown CIP was initially adopted in 2010, with the Façade Grant and Study Grant programs only. The Downtown Secondary Plan was adopted in April 2012 and in coordination, the CIP was amended to both reflect the new planning area as well as introduce the Minor and Major Downtown Activation Grant programs. The CIP’s essential purpose is to incentivize and facilitate partnerships towards achieving the community objectives of a renewed downtown area as well as create and promote the area as a rising investment environment. Major CIP Grants
The Major Activation grants, using the Tax Increment Based Grant (TIBG) model, have been the catalyst for much of the large-scale redevelopment that has taken place downtown over the last three years.
These grant decisions remain at the Council level based on the scale of the investment and are not part of the $130,000 line item.
Funding for these grants reached its cap in 2014. Currently, without additional budget authorization from Council, this program is closed to applications.
Minor CIP Grants The running and award of the Minor Activation grants, along with the Façade and Study
grant programs is delegated to the Downtown Renewal Office. The Minor Activation grants are directed to smaller renovations that would open up vacant
or underutilized space. These have had a slower uptake in the community as projects and opportunities have taken longer to develop.
The CIP funding was cut in half in 2013 despite the fact that the CIP amendment was just
9
2015-03-16
introduced in 2012. This has largely hindered the ability to award the Minor Activation grant projects that have been received.
The Façade and Study Grants, having been established in 2010 are due for Council review this year in 2015. The Minor and Major programs are due for review in 2017.
To date, the Façade, Study and Minor Activation grants have leveraged $890k in awards over five years to achieve over $3M in construction activity (1 public : 2.3 private ratio)
Report Downtown CIP: The programs consistently remain oversubscribed year to year. There have been a total of 132 applications received, for which 81 have been awarded (a 1:1.6 ratio). The DRO is aware of interest in the programs as the application period approaches each year. In particular, for 2015, the interest in the Minor Activation program has overshadowed the Façade and Study inquiries. In particular, DRO is aware that there are significant projects of community-wide interest (not yet publically announced at the time of writing this brief) that are looking to apply to the CIP for 2015.
Opportunity Risk: There are significant projects in the development stage that are looking towards applications under the CIP. Eliminating the limited funding will reduce the City’s capacity for transformative and early projects in the CIP area.
Reputational Risk: The City will have a Community Improvement Plan promoting investment and partnership that is completely unfunded and unable to engage the investment community. Budget Risk: Some projects may warrant individual approaches for funding which will create ad hoc decision making outside of the budget cycle.
Conclusion There are significant reputational, relationship and opportunity risks in eliminating this budget line. The community will have a fully unfunded Community Improvement Plan which promotes investment without itself making any.
10
Multi-res Garbage pick-up
Q9.1. I don’t see multi-res pick-up as a proposed expansion or as an expansion that is not
supported. Could someone explain why there is not any reference to Multi-res
pick-up?
Answered by Dean F. Wyman, Solid Waste Resources Department
Q9.1. The expansion pertaining to the provision of front-end collection service to multi-residential
dwellings was not included in the “Not Funded Expansions” section because part of the
internal cost savings contained in this expansion relate to the existing Residential Collection
Service. At Council’s request, the Internal Auditor will be conducting an operational audit of
the Residential Collection Service in 2015. Until the results of this operational audit are known,
staff felt it prudent not to list a potential new service with financial payback tied to an existing
service that may not be provided in 2016.
Please see the following quantitative information report.
11
2015 Operating Budget Expansion Request: Quantitative Information
Request Type (click to select):
Object Code 2015 2016 2017 Explanation
Estimated Expenditures
Compensation:
• Wages (annual for 1 FTE) $0 $45,200 $46,100
• # of Months budgeted 12 12 12
• Union Type (click to select) 241 241
• # of FTE's 0.00 2.00
• Total Wages 1110 $0 $90,400 $92,200
• Total Benefits 1510 $0 0% $54,200 60% $55,300 60%
Total Compensation $0 $144,600 $147,500
Purchased Goods:
• Reference material 2101 $0 $0 $0
• Office supplies 2102 $0 $0 $0
• Uniforms 2801 $0 $140 $140
• Other (provide explanation)
• Other (provide explanation) $0 $0 $0
Total Purchased Goods $0 $100 $100
Purchased Services:
• Recruitment (Advertising) 3307 $0 $0 $0
• Mileage 3404 $0 $0 $0
• Training 3412 $0 $0 $0
• Other (provide explanation) $0 $30,000 $30,600 Fleet Mtce costs 4106.mtce
• Other (provide explanation) $0 $10,000 $12,000 fuel 4106.fuel
Total Purchased Services: $0 $40,000 $42,600
Capital Expenses: funding budgeted here will be transferred to a capital project for purchasing the asset
• Vehicle 4903 $0 $540,000 $0 acquisition cost of 2 new vehicles
• Furniture 4903 $0 $60,000 $60,000 acquisition cost of front end bins
• Phone 4903 $0 $0 $0
• Computer 4903 $0 $0 $0
• Cell Phone 4903 $0 $0
• PPE Equipment 4903 $0 $0 $0
Total Minor Capital: $0 $600,000 $60,000all capital costs will be funded by reallocation of
existing approved unspect SWR capital funds
Expenditure Reductions: 1) Enter as a negative amount 2) provide an explanation of reductions complete with BU & object code
• Reduction in expenditure-$60,000 -$61,200
reduction in OT (720-7111) of $10,000, reduction in
OT (720-7113) of $20,000, savings to City by
internalizing collections at City facilities $30,000Total Expenditure Reductions $0 -$60,000 -$61,200
Total Expenditures $0 $724,700 $189,000
Estimated Revenues: 1) Enter as a negative amount 2) provide an explanation of revenues
• Internal Recoveries 7100's
• Grant 8101 - 8106 $0 $0 $0
• Partnership contribution 8505 $0 $0 $0
• External recoveries 8514 $0 $0 $0
• Other (provide explanation) $0 -$600,000 -$60,000reallocation of existing, approved, unspent capital
budget funds from other SWR projectsTotal Revenue $0 -$600,000 -$60,000
2015 2016 2017
Budget $ impact: $0 $124,700 $129,000
Budget FTE impact: 0 N/A N/A
Service InvestmentFTE Position Title/Service
Department & Division:
Business Unit # and Name:
Front End CollectionPlanning & Building, Engineering and Environment, Solid Waste ResourcesNEW BU to be created
12
Public Services
Public Works Purchased Services
Q10.1. The purchased services budget for Public Works is projecting a 9.5% increase for 2015
($382,550K). Could I please request a more detailed summary of these increases?
Answered by Rod Keller, General Manager, Operations Department
Public Services
A10.1. The 9.5% increase represents $382,550 increase to purchased services and can be broken down into these three main areas:
• Increase of Street Lighting maintenance agreement with Guelph Hydro
• Increase of contracted Fleet vehicle repair for all City vehicles (including Guelph Transit) to
match actual trend in order to meet service standards
• Increase in Road and Sidewalk contracted services for Winter Control to match actual trend
Parks and Recreation Purchased Services
Q11.1. The purchased services budget for Parks and Recreation is projecting a 29.4% increase for
2015 ($55,417K). Could I please request a more detailed summary of these increases?
Answered by Kristene Scott, General Manager – Parks & Recreation Public Services
A11.1. The following report provides the answer.
13
20
14
20
15
20
15
Par
ks -
Pu
rch
ased
Ser
vice
sB
ud
get
Re
qu
est
ed
Bu
dge
tEx
pla
nat
ion
Bu
dge
tC
han
ge $
Re
pai
rs &
Mai
nte
nan
ce
31
01
EQ
UIP
MEN
T R
EPA
IRS
& M
TCE
$4
4,7
00
$4
5,3
00
$6
00
infl
atio
nar
y
31
02
BU
ILD
ING
REP
AIR
S &
MTC
E7
,10
07
,20
01
00
infl
atio
nar
y
31
08
CO
NTR
AC
TOR
S R
EPA
IRS
& M
TCE
23
,60
02
6,0
00
2,4
00
add
ed b
ud
get
$ f
or
Socc
er e
ncl
osu
re a
nd
Pat
hs/
road
way
s/p
arki
ng
31
15
JA
NIT
OR
IAL
SER
VIC
E2
8,0
00
28
,50
05
00
infl
atio
nar
y
Tota
l R
ep
airs
& M
ain
ten
ance
10
3,4
00
10
7,0
00
3,6
00
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
s
33
08
RA
DIO
S &
PA
GER
S1
00
3,1
00
3,0
00
add
ed b
ud
get
$ f
or
Turf
mai
nte
nan
ce
33
09
AD
VER
TISI
NG
- S
TAFF
ING
1,0
00
3,2
00
2,2
00
pri
or
bu
dge
t o
f $
1k
was
insu
ffic
ien
t, a
ctu
als
$7
k in
20
14
33
11
CEL
LULA
R P
HO
NE
CH
AR
GES
16
,90
01
9,6
00
2,7
00
for
Par
ks a
dm
in a
nd
Sp
ort
sfie
lds.
Bu
dge
t se
t b
y
I/T
dep
artm
ent.
33
12
AN
SWER
ING
SER
VIC
E3
,10
03
,20
01
00
infl
atio
nar
y
Tota
l C
om
mu
nic
atio
ns
21
,10
02
9,1
00
8,0
00
Trav
e/T
rain
ing/
Ass
oci
atio
ns
34
04
MIL
EAG
E8
75
1,1
25
25
0in
flat
ion
ary
34
05
AD
MIS
SN/R
EGN
/CO
NF
FEES
4,9
63
6,3
13
1,3
50
Par
ks a
dm
in $
10
00
, Par
k p
lan
nin
g $
35
0
34
13
CO
RP
OR
ATE
MEM
BER
SHIP
2,4
00
2,5
92
19
2in
flat
ion
ary
Tota
l Tr
ave
/ Tra
inin
g/A
sso
ciat
ion
s8
,23
81
0,0
30
1,7
92
Co
nsu
ltin
g
35
18
CO
NTR
AC
T ST
AFF
10
,00
01
0,0
00
Par
k p
lan
nin
g -
for
un
anti
cip
ated
wo
rk f
or
cap
ital
pro
ject
s
35
25
BIL
LIN
G &
CO
LLEC
TIO
N C
HA
RG
ES1
5,0
00
15
,00
0C
IL a
pp
rais
al f
ees.
New
op
erat
ing
exp
ense
/bu
dge
t fo
r P
arks
in o
rder
to
pre
serv
e
the
DC
CIL
res
erve
. Pre
vio
usl
y ab
sorb
ed in
Pla
nn
ing
dep
t.
35
45
REG
ULA
TOR
Y IN
SPEC
TIO
N&
LIC
ENSE
7,0
00
9,0
00
2,0
00
Pla
y eq
uip
men
t
Tota
l C
on
sult
ing
7,0
00
34
,00
02
7,0
00
Re
nta
l/Le
ase
s
37
05
VEH
ICLE
REN
TAL
20
,80
03
5,8
25
15
,02
5$
10
k fo
r Tu
rf M
ain
ten
ance
, $5
k fo
r P
arks
Ad
min
- b
ud
get
corr
ecti
on
bas
ed o
n h
isto
rica
l
actu
als
Tota
l R
en
tal/
Leas
es
20
,80
03
5,8
25
15
,02
5
Tota
l 1
6 P
arks
16
0,5
38
21
5,9
55
55
,41
7
Cit
y o
f G
ue
lph
20
15
Op
erat
ing
Bu
dge
t
Par
ks
14
Corporate Building Maintenance
Q12.1. The purchased services budget is projecting a 21.5% increase for 2015 ($40,688K). Could I
please request a more detailed summary of these increases?
Answered by Mario Petricevic, General Manager, Plants & Infrastructure Public Services
A12.1. Items contributing to the $40,688 increase in the ‘purchased services’ area of the Corporate
Building Maintenance (CBM) budget are as follows:
1. Increase of $3,800 to equipment repairs and maintenance at City Hall. Adjustment based
on 2014 actuals.
2. Increase of $10,800 to building repairs and maintenance at City Hall. Adjustment based on
2014 actuals.
3. Increase of $300 to repairs and maintenance at 50 Municipal Street. Adjusted for inflation
by 2%.
4. Increase of $300 to repairs and maintenance in Building Maintenance Admin. Adjusted for
inflation by 2%.
5. Increase of $300 to repairs and maintenance in Civic Precinct/Market Square. Adjusted for
inflation by 2%.
6. Addition of $10,000 for professional consulting fees in Building Maintenance Admin to
address indoor air quality and hazardous materials investigations as required. Previously
not budgeted.
7. Addition of $8,000 to equipment and building repairs and maintenance budgets at 65
Delhi. No budget provided in 2014 for this building.
8. Addition of $11,988 to ‘network maintenance’ at 65 Delhi. No budget provided in 2014 for
this building.
9. Net increase of $200 for cell phone charges.
10. Net decrease of $5,000 for rental equipment.
15
Guelph Transit Purchased Services
Q13.1. The purchased services budget for Guelph Transit is projecting a 27.8% increase for 2015
($199,500K). Could I please request a more detailed summary of these increases?
Answered by Phil Meagher, General Manager, Guelph Transit
A13.1. The 27.8% increase $199,500K includes:
• Support and warranty for Trapeze bus scheduling system $120,000.
• Building and Equipment repairs increase $36,500 to deal with wear and tear to
building/equipment due to operations and aging.
• Addition of new lunchroom facilities rental according to new collective agreement $15,000.
• Medical expense increases $15,000 for attendance management.
Transit Fare Increases
Q14.1. Response provided to Councillors inquiries regarding the implications of Transit
Fare Increases on the 2015 Budget.
A14.1. Answered by Phil Meagher, General Manager, Guelph Transit
The following document outlines the implications.
16
2015-03-13
APPENDIX I CITY OF GUELPH
2015 TRANSIT OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS
ISSUE: Implications of a fare increase DEPARTMENT: Guelph Transit PREPARER: Phil Meagher
STAFF RESPONSE
Purpose The purpose of this memo is to summarize the financial implications to the 2015 operating budget of the proposed 10 per cent transit fare price increase.
Background Guelph Transit conventional service is offered on 20 base routes and four university express routes, with stops located throughout the city. Currently, the service frequency for base routes is every 20 minutes during peak service times Monday to Friday, and every 30 minutes during off-peak times Monday to Friday, during weekends, and during civic and statutory Holidays. The service frequency for the university express routes is every 20 minutes Monday to Friday during the University of Guelph fall and winter semesters. This Council-approved route system was introduced in 2012, with the current service frequency taking effect in 2013. The ridership growth and resulting revenue from the new route system was less than anticipated, resulting in revenue projections not being realized. Further underfunding of Guelph Transit occurred because the cost of staff overtime with the full restoration of Holiday service in 2012 was not included in the budget. The cost of bus operator overtime that is built into scheduled shifts was also not included in the budget. Guelph Transit is a partial user-pay department, with municipal funding being capped at 50 per cent of the operating budget in 2015. Fare price increases can be used by the department to align the annual budget with available municipal funding.
Report Guelph Transit’s annual budget has been underfunded as a result of lower-than-anticipated ridership growth and revenue, and as the result of non-budgeted costs for Holiday service and for scheduled bus operator overtime. To off-set the negative budget projection, a fare increase is proposed:
1) Transit fare price increase. Guelph Transit is proposing a 10 per cent fare price increase across all fare categories. It is important to note that the 10 per cent increase is a guideline, but that actual increase varies by fare category between 8.3 per cent and 11.3 percent to allow for rounding. Guelph Transit’s last fare increase was in 2012. The current and proposed fare prices in comparison to similar Transit properties are:
17
2015-03-13
The industry-standard fare-elasticity model indicates that for every one per cent increase in fare price, ridership will decrease by approximately 0.5 percent. Therefore, for a 10 per cent increase in fare price, Guelph Transit ridership is expected to decrease by five per cent or approximately 300,000 passengers per year. This model was used to estimate the fare revenue projection, based on both the proposed new fare prices and the potential decrease in ridership. The fare price increase is expected to result in additional estimated revenue, May 2015 to December 2015, of approximately $143,992, with the total annualized fare revenue projected at approximately $215,884. University of Guelph is not affected by this increase because the contract between the City and the University is up for renewal in 2016. An increase in price will be reviewed prior to contract renewal.
Risk Mitigation Guelph Transit relies on the industry-standard fare-elasticity model that indicates that for every one per cent increase in fares, ridership decreases by 0.5 per cent. Therefore these fluctuations have been included in the calculations for budget purpose. It should be noted that both the fare price increase is expected to result in ridership decreases. Planning for a ridership decrease contravenes Guelph Transit’s mandate to plan for growth to 15 per cent transit modal split, based on the Provincial Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and based on Guelph’s Official Plan. With the introduction of the change to the fare price, Guelph Transit will need to prepare a comprehensive communications and marketing plan to ensure that we retain as many current customers as possible. In conjunction with these changes, Guelph Transit is currently undertaking a bus route review and a transit priority project. The bus route review is being undertaken to better match available conventional transit capacity with passenger demand, while maintaining appropriate service coverage. Route updates are scheduled to be implemented in September 2015. The transit priority project will identify transit priority measures that will help buses to travel more quickly and reliably, with recommendations to Council by September 2015. Transit will also be conducting a Customer Service Survey in the winter of 2015 to again gauge our performance in the eyes of our customers. Improved allocation of transit capacity, schedule adherence and customer service will assist in retaining and attracting customers.
Fare Category Current Fare Price
Proposed Fare Price
Comparator Municipalities’ Average Fares
Cash $3.00 $3.25 $2.93 Adult Ticket $2.40 $2.65 $2.47 Adult Monthly Pass $75.00 $83.00 $83.04 Adult Affordable Pass $37.50 $41.50 $45.38 Youth Ticket $1.90 $2.10 $2.10 Youth Monthly Pass $64.00 $71.00 $59.82 Youth Affordable Pass $32.00 $35.50 $39.38 Senior Ticket $2.00 $2.20 $2.02 Senior Monthly Pass $62.00 $69.00 $53.00 Senior Affordable Pass $31.00 $34.50 $34.75 Day Pass $7.25 $8.00 $8.20
18
2015-03-13
Conclusion A proposed fare increase will increase Transit’s revenue by approximately $144,000. If there are no changes to service or fare increase, our ridership should remain steady and continue to build confidence in the service we provide.
19
Ridership Revenue Changes
Q15.1. The ridership revenue is forecast to drop 6.2% in 2015 over last years budget. Last year’s
forecasted a rise of 9.5% for 2014. What is the estimated forecast change over 2014′s
actuals, (not budgeted)?
Answered by Phil Meagher, General Manager Guelph Transit Public Services
A15.1. 2015 forecasted ridership revenue change over 2014 actual is $618,452 or 6.3% increase.
Below is the comparison for past years. Budget variance table is attached:
Budget Actual Variance % Variance
2010 $ 8,760,096 $ 8,832,785 0.8% $ 72,689
2011 $ 9,738,700 $ 10,000,733 2.7% $ 262,033
2012 $ 10,478,500 $ 9,583,059 -8.5% $ (895,441)
2013 $ 10,122,400 $ 9,497,515 -6.2% $ (624,885)
2014 $ 11,115,333 $ 9,781,243 -12.0% $ (1,334,090)
2015 $ 10,399,695
20
Fare Subsidies
Q16.1. Could you please provide an estimate of ridership subsidy for the 4 periods noted per trip?
Weekday, Saturday, Sunday, Holiday and with the two scenarios, with and without
frequency reductions.
• ie Weekday existing : Farebox Revenue $3.00, Subsidy $2.50, Actual $5.50
• ie Holiday existing: Farebox Revenue $3.00, Subsidy $13.50, Actual $16.50
Answered by Phil Meagher, General Manager Guelph Transit Public Services
A16.1. We only track ridership subsidy for transit as a whole, and do not have the information for individual day period. The transit subsidy rate in 2015 budget is 51%.
Transit Service for Sundays and Holidays
Q17.1. What is the cost of expanding Sunday and Holiday transit service from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm?
Q17.2. Are there any forecast models that would be able to predict an increase in Sunday/Holiday
ridership if the hours were expanded from 8am to 8pm?
Answered by Phil Meagher, General Manager Public Services, Transit
A17.1.
Q17.2. As previously noted, Guelph Transit does not have forecast modelling software. Based on current
ridership statistics, fleet costs (fuel, parts maintenance etc.) and employee compensation, Guelph
Transit has projected the total budget impact to extend Sunday service to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. If this
were to move forward, a more detailed analysis would need to be done.
The total projected annual cost to extend Sunday service from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. would cost
approximately $132,166.04. There are other costs that were not taken into consideration such as
re-printing all bus stop information posts, advertising costs and administrative hours required
to complete the change.
21
Transit Service Reductions
Q18.1. When riders arrive at the hub, they might have to wait 1/2 hour to catch next bus. How will
they stay warm in winter?
Q18.2. Are there washroom facilities planned in future capital budgets?
Q18.3. When is the train station opening?
Q18.4. Who is deciding that, do we need to budget for opening?
Q18.5. Will the 10 new extra board positions, will overtime be eliminated? What is the projection for
OT this year.
Answered by Phil Meagher, General Manager Guelph Transit Public Services
A18.1. Currently there is no facility available for riders to stay warm in the winter. We could look at
opening the VIA station on weekends during our hours of operation however we would need
to budget the appropriate staff time to manage this.
A18.2. Outside of the VIA Station renovations there are no public washroom facilities planned for
Guelph Central Station in future capital budgets.
A18.3. The VIA station has been part of protracted land-transfer and contribution agreement
negotiations between the City and Metrolinx. The timing and party undertaking the
renovation of the historic building, including refurbishing the waiting area and public
washrooms, as well as establishing Greyhound as lead ticketing agency, will be resolved this
year. The City has retained capital dollars to contribute to this solution in previous year’s
budgets. Timing of the opening will be determined through these negotiations.
A18.4. See above.
A18.5. The 10 new extra board will assist in reducing overtime from previous levels. This is also a
Collective Bargaining issue as it was negotiated in the ATU contract several years ago and was
not implemented properly. The projection for overtime for 2015 was $459,153. and was
based on the following categories
• OT Absence Sick
• T Legislated or Regulatory Compliance
• OT Management Directed
• OT Revenue Generation However our budget was reduced $300,000 to fall within the corporate target and our 2015 OT budget is $159,153.
22
Downtown Fire Hall Staff
Q19.1. What would be the budget implications of the elimination of the surplus downtown fire
positions? Please provide annualized cost saving.
Q19.2. We still have a fire crew at the downtown fire hall, the shift is not required as per fire services
study completed 10 years ago. I want to know the annual saving of removing this shift as a
budget cut.
Answered by Shawn Armstrong, General Manager / Fire Chief Guelph Fire Department
A19.1 and 19.2 Essentially, 40 % of the time a first response capability is provided from the
Downtown HQ location. This has a staffing cost of $1,023,546 (confirmed by finance and full
year number). Cutting this shift will have the following implications:
Emergency 1st response capability to the downtown core will not be available from
Headquarters. Emergency services will need to come from the remaining service locations.
Guelph Fire Department attends 350 emergencies in the downtown core area each year. An
extended response time to the Downtown core will result.
“Between the year 2006 to the year 2031 (growth plan target year), a minimum additional
2650 units are being forecast for the downtown, a figure that is necessary to achieve the
provincial density target of 150 persons and jobs per hectare for our downtown under the
Growth Plan. This will result in a minimum of 8500 people residing in the downtown in 2031.
Employment in 2011 in the downtown is estimated to be approximately 6850 jobs and is
expected to only increase slightly, resulting in a minimum 7500 jobs by 2031.” Source: Jason
Downham Planning
The TRICAR developments and future development at the former WOODS plant property are
good examples of the changing downtown landscape with an additional 270 dwelling units
contained within a high rise buildings.
Consideration was given to current populations in the downtown core and future growth
projections, (residential live/work intensification in the downtown). The current staffing
maintains an effective response capability in the downtown core and anticipates future
pressure on emergency services due to growth.
23
A six station model was ultimately approved by Council after the 2003 study was received. At
Council’s direction, staffing for station 5 at Victoria and Elizabeth was approved at a reduced
number from 20 FF to 12 Firefighters in order to maintain limited response coverage from
Headquarters while maintain a six station model. (Not currently a 24 hour/7 Day 1st
response).
60% of the time staffing that would otherwise be allocated to the downtown station,
(Headquarters) gets redeployed to offset staff vacancies across the City. However, with the
suggested additional reduction there will be a negative impact on service levels and on
overtime hours required to maintain minimum staffing across all coverage areas. (Currently a
contractual requirement to maintain minimum levels). Minimum levels at all response
locations drop to 4 FF except for the Downtown station.
Recently Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) rated the overall capabilities of Fire Services and the
City’s water distribution system. The survey analyzes both the water distribution system and
the response capabilities. The Survey establishes the risk rating for insurance underwriting
purposes. A fire underwriter’s survey confirm that a robust fire response capability adds
value by providing cost effective insurance premiums for occupancies in Guelph
The response capability from the Headquarters has an overall positive impact on the
complete coverage area of Guelph. In addition to the life safety benefits, Headquarters has
an optimal impact on insurance premiums in all areas of the City except for the south end
(which has a different rating). This is due to the proximity of the Downtown Station to all
stations. A copy of the Survey report is complete and being forecasted for a committee
report in April, 2015.
To summarize:
• Removal of the HQ pumper would be detrimental to response in the downtown and to
other areas of the City of Guelph.
• Collective agreement issues such as layoff notice timing and minimum staffing
requirements would be brought into play. Overtime could potentially eat up a significant
segment of savings. So essentially is not possible to overcome current language in the
collective agreement.
• International accreditation could be affected.
• Fire Marshalls office could elect to review Fire Service under the Fire Protection and
Prevention Act.
• Fire Underwriters Survey rankings would be affected. This could change insurance rates
for citizens thereby offsetting potential tax related saving.
• Our ‘Standards of Cover’ documentation covers risks within the City, fire propagation
issues, the need for certain staffing levels for certain types of fires, risk related to response
times, etc. We would certainly make this documentation available for review
(as we have done in the past) if requested.
24
Historical Levels of Municipal Subsidy
Q20.1. Could you provide the level of municipal subsidy for transit as a percent of ridership revenue for
the last ten years (including all transit capital and budget variances), include the forecast for this year?
Answered by City of Guelph staff:
A20.1. The subsidy is the amount of direct or indirect cost not paid by the consumer of the service,
but paid by the City, from the tax base. The following worksheet is the subsidy rate for past
10 years.
Please note in the worksheet, the 2005 data is not comparable due to the budget structure in
place at the time. In 2005, the budget and actuals did not include transit fleet operation.
25
Yea
r20
0520
0520
0620
0620
0720
0720
0820
0820
0920
0920
1020
1020
112
01
12
01
22
01
22
01
32
01
32
01
42
01
42
01
5
Bu
dge
tA
ctu
als
Bu
dge
tA
ctu
als
Bu
dge
tA
ctu
als
Bu
dge
tA
ctu
als
Bu
dge
tA
ctu
als
Bu
dge
tA
ctu
als
Bu
dge
tA
ctu
als
Bu
dge
tA
ctu
als
Bu
dge
tA
ctu
als
Bu
dge
tA
ctu
als
Bu
dge
t
Rev
en
ue
Tota
l Rev
en
ue
(6,3
59,9
00)
(6
,446
,759
)
(6,5
69,2
00)
(6
,369
,677
)
(6,9
41,1
00)
(6
,537
,869
)
(7,4
78,6
49)
(7
,072
,950
)
(8,8
52,5
65)
(8
,081
,563
)
(9,0
34,1
85)
(9
,146
,682
)
(10,
021,
500)
(10,
278,
503)
(10,
776,
000)
(9,8
82,0
09)
(1
0,40
6,40
0)
(9
,796
,278
)
(11,
399,
333)
(10,
081,
669)
(10,
671,
695)
Exp
end
itu
res
Dir
ect
Co
st
Tran
sit
Op
erat
ion
s7,
693,
000
7,
617,
928
8,
385,
300
7,
976,
771
9,
839,
560
9,
100,
654
10
,629
,410
10
,833
,420
12
,310
,300
11
,840
,921
12
,159
,467
11
,843
,037
13
,382
,050
8,
461,
269
14
,160
,930
13
,564
,648
14
,272
,760
14
,553
,472
14
,822
,600
15
,758
,042
16
,622
,737
Tran
sit
Flee
t O
per
atio
ns
-
200,
838
4,
861,
600
4,
966,
222
5,
327,
238
5,
537,
995
6,
269,
300
6,
525,
281
6,
906,
000
6,
707,
634
7,
067,
263
6,
545,
380
7,
011,
700
7,
518,
927
7,
352,
110
8,
005,
817
8,
356,
075
8,
753,
136
8,
453,
600
9,
288,
864
8,
556,
550
Tran
sit
Dis
pat
chin
g11
1,10
0
117,
457
11
9,20
0
122,
419
12
7,40
0
131,
379
12
7,40
0
137,
157
13
0,90
0
120,
758
13
3,90
0
141,
748
14
0,10
0
164,
358
14
6,55
0
171,
506
15
3,85
0
139,
759
15
1,50
0
180,
841
15
8,00
0
Tota
l Dir
ect
Co
st7,
804,
100
7,
936,
223
13
,366
,100
13
,065
,412
15
,294
,198
14
,770
,027
17
,026
,110
17
,495
,858
19
,347
,200
18
,669
,313
19
,360
,630
18
,530
,165
20
,533
,850
1
6,1
44
,55
4
21
,65
9,5
90
2
1,7
41
,97
1
22
,78
2,6
85
2
3,4
46
,36
7
23
,42
7,7
00
2
5,2
27
,74
7
25
,33
7,2
87
Ind
irec
t C
ost
Tran
sit
Ad
min
istr
atio
n42
7,70
0
409,
720
52
5,70
0
527,
141
44
9,40
0
436,
621
46
1,85
0
480,
586
52
9,50
0
1,85
6,39
5
528,
850
50
6,87
7
678,
150
61
5,55
1
644,
630
61
0,15
4
616,
650
65
1,65
1
714,
320
64
7,33
8
735,
420
Tran
sit
Faci
lity
426,
700
42
4,40
8
404,
700
46
2,90
6
548,
600
63
6,18
7
661,
150
66
8,36
3
726,
300
62
9,30
2
699,
100
66
7,79
6
852,
610
74
2,35
8
781,
250
73
7,69
2
761,
300
80
9,14
4
768,
600
78
0,02
1
888,
000
Tran
sit
Term
inal
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
95,8
00
5,65
1
46
9,60
0
198,
185
66
6,50
0
322,
497
63
0,68
1
402,
704
40
4,40
0
Tota
l In
dir
ect
Co
st85
4,40
0
834,
128
93
0,40
0
990,
047
99
8,00
0
1,07
2,80
8
1,12
3,00
0
1,14
8,94
9
1,25
5,80
0
2,48
5,69
8
1,22
7,95
0
1,17
4,67
3
1,62
6,56
0
1,3
63
,56
0
1,8
95
,48
0
1,5
46
,03
1
2,0
44
,45
0
1,7
83
,29
2
2,1
13
,60
1
1,8
30
,06
3
2,0
27
,82
0
Tota
l Dir
ect
& In
dir
ect
Co
st8,
658,
500
8,
770,
351
14
,296
,500
14
,055
,460
16
,292
,198
15
,842
,835
18
,149
,110
18
,644
,807
20
,603
,000
21
,155
,011
20
,588
,580
19
,704
,838
22
,160
,410
1
7,5
08
,11
4
23
,55
5,0
70
2
3,2
88
,00
2
24
,82
7,1
35
2
5,2
29
,65
9
25
,54
1,3
01
2
7,0
57
,81
0
27
,36
5,1
07
Pro
vin
cial
Gas
Tax
Fu
nd
s (7
83,3
00)
(860
,563
)
(1
,633
,000
)
(1,2
47,9
66)
(2
,730
,698
)
(2,4
81,1
22)
(2
,608
,810
)
(2,5
86,1
20)
(3
,013
,800
)
(2,4
49,5
05)
(2
,654
,300
)
(2,3
20,0
27)
(2
,654
,300
)
2,44
8,49
5
(2,6
54,3
00)
(2
,654
,300
)
(2,7
54,3
00)
(2
,754
,300
)
(2,7
54,3
00)
(2
,754
,300
)
(2,7
24,5
90)
TOTA
L N
ET1,
515,
300
1,
463,
028
6,
094,
300
6,
437,
816
6,
620,
400
6,
823,
844
8,
061,
651
8,
985,
737
8,
736,
635
10
,623
,943
8,
900,
095
8,
238,
129
9,
484,
610
9
,67
8,1
06
1
0,1
24
,77
0
10
,75
1,6
93
1
1,6
66
,43
5
12
,67
9,0
81
1
1,3
87
,66
8
14
,22
1,8
41
1
3,9
68
,82
2
TOTA
L SU
BSI
DY
REQ
UIR
ED18
%17
%43
%46
%41
%43
%44
%48
%42
%50
%43
%42
%43
%5
5%
43
%4
6%
47
%5
0%
45
%5
3%
51
%
Tran
sit
Sub
sid
izat
ion
Cal
cula
tio
n
26
General Questions
Use of External Consultants
Q21.1. It’s my understanding form the Audit report on external consulting that all consulting dollars
were to be zeroed out and built back into the 2015 budget. Could I please get a summary of
what costs were built back into this budget and a list of associated projects. I’m looking for
2014 actuals versus 2015 projections.
Answered by Ron Maeresera, Senior Corporate Analyst, Financial Planning
Corporate Services
A21.1. The following document summarizes these costs.
27
The 2014 consulting (3501) Tax Supported department actuals and the 2015 proposed budget and
details are shown below.
2015 Consulting (3501) Operating Budget and 2014 Actuals
Total Total Total
Budget Budget Actuals
2015 2014 2014
Expense
3501 Consulting
11 Mayor & Council 23,600 11,754
10 CAO Administration 310,579 280,579 158,771
20 IDE Administration 30,000 49,800 31,076
21 Planning 181,300 238,800 106,525
22 Building 16,000 15,000 639
23 Engineering 6,500 3,500 30,454
24 Solid Waste 263,000 267,200 165,795
25 Enterprise 185,500 294,500 288,991
10 PS Administration 4,100 5,146
11 Recreation Programs and Facilities 5,200
12 Community Engagement and Social Services Liaison
12,000 93,900 102,957
13 Culture and Tourism Division 8,600 10,172
14 Corporate Building Maintenance 10,000 336
15 Business Services 22,000 32,520 4,319
16 Parks 38,165
17 By-Law, Compliance, Security & Licensing 3,000 3,000 2,585
18 Transit 30,400 30,400 121,465
19 Public Works 26,600 19,452
20 Emergency Services 4,100 3,857
40 HR Administration 86,500 86,500 73,442
41 Human Resources 56,100 56,100 59,169
42 Legal Services 7,500 181,843
43 Information Technology 70,300 70,300 75,513
44 Clerk Services 2,600 191
45 Corporate Communications 40,000 40,000 20,660
46 Finance 10,400 10,700 25,018
70 General Expenditures 15,900 29,500 59,038
Total 3501 Consulting 1,349,479 1,684,599 1,597,333
28
Department Budget Amount
Project
Planning $120,300 IOR (Integrated operational review)
Planning $1,000 Support heritage designation processes
Planning $60,000 Support peer review services and development related miscellaneous consulting
IDE Admin $30,000 Executive and staff coaching
Building $15,000 Review existing legal proceedings program
Building $1,000 Develop and implement customer service satisfaction survey
Engineering $6,500 Services required for peer review projects (charged back to capital)
Solid Waste $188,000 Regulatory requirements
Solid Waste $75,000 Service review, comprehensive material audit
CAO $ 30,000 Ad hoc Audit support (i.e.: special investigations as occurred in 2014) that required external expertise
CAO $16,400 Risk Management expertise for complex capital projects such as Baker St, South End Rec Ctr. Etc.)
CAO $264,179 Contingency
By-law Enforcement
$2,000 cover costs associated with an outside software programmer to maintain our parking exemption program (not supported by IT)
By-law Enforcement
$1,000
Transit Admin $20,400 For ergonomic assessment of bus drivers who have put in requested for Health and Safety consideration for seats on buses. We are required to do this for Health and Safety
Transit Planning & Scheduling
$10,000 Timing studies done by a third party for on-time reliability of our service and meeting transfers at Guelph Central Station. This is required for Key Performance Indicators for meeting the goals of the Transit Growth Strategy and for Recasting Guelph Transit.
Community Engagement and Social Services Liaison
$12,000 for the local immigration partnership. Offset 100% by federal grant funding.
Corporate Building Maintenance
$10,000 for consultant services for indoor air quality issues.
Business Services $22,000 for annual report and facility allocations policy review.
Community Energy $48,000 CEI Update
29
Community Energy ($25,000 ) Ministry of Energy funding from Municipal Energy Plan Program
Community Energy $20,000 Energy Asset Review
Community Energy $25,000 GEERS Implementation
Community Energy $30,000 GEERS ICI Sector
Community Energy $ 15,000 Annual Reporting CEI and CEMP
Community Energy $45,500 Energy Data Management Strategy and Implementation
DRO $27,000 Baker Street Redevelopment: Technical Assistance
Finance Admin $4,235 BMA – 2014 Municipal Study
Finance Admin $1,165 BMA – 2015 Budget Model Review
Taxation & Revenue $1,000 Vailtech software modifications
Taxation & Revenue $1,000 Assessment appeals
Taxation & Revenue $3,000 Assessment based management report
General Expenditures
$15,900 Contingency
Technology Services Consulting
$70,300 Physical server deployment, virtual machine deployment, backup/restore tickets, tape management, Citrix infrastructure design/upgrades, file permissions, account admin. (All tasks that the current Corporate Server Specialist cannot keep pace with.)(5 months at 35 hours/week @100.00/hr)
Communications $40,000 To fund communications-related
training for non-Communications staff
(organization-wide); and third party
expertise to supplement in-house
expertise and capacity. HR (JJEC)
$15,300 Legislative requirement - external services to ensure compliance with Pay Equity and JE requirements.
HR (Negotiations)
$10,200 Used to pay for Mediation services during negotiations
HR (Contingency)
$30,600 Outplacement services for employee terminations & severance
HR admin Employee Survey
$50,000 annual employee engagement funding - council approved
HR $36,500 Required for HR/HRIS consultant to support the HR portion of the IT CSP (to automate and streamline HR processes)
30
FTE Positions-Legislated and Potential Risks to the City
Q22.1. Could the FTE details be posted for positions to show details outlining positions that are
legislated and those that pose potential risks to the City?
Answered by Ron Maeresera, Senior Corporate Analyst, Financial Planning
Corporate Services A22.1. The following report outlines the details of each position.
31
Of the 19.8 recommended, 11.8 positions are either legislated or provide a level of safety to the public that has been identified as risky.
Position FTE Department Effect
Resource Conservation Inspector (100% Building Permit Funded) (APPROVED - Non Tax Budget)
1 Building Legislated
Fire Prevention Officer 1 Fire Legislated
Adult School Crossing Guards 5 Traffic & Parking Risk
Full Time Paramedics 3 EMS Legislated
Supervisor Backfill 0.8 EMS Legislated
Corporate Server Specialist (Internal Audit Recommendation)
1 IT Risk
Total 11.8
Resource Conservation inspector:
These are legislated, mandatory requirements established by the Province that require the City to have inspections done on various components of construction. The City has no choice – we must perform these inspections and this additional inspector will allow us to meet these requirements. The focus of this position is for the resource conservation requirements in the building code and we currently do not have the expertise or the capacity to perform these inspections adequately.
Fire Prevention Officer: The expansion request will address new legislative requirements to respond to Ontario Legislations relating to comprehensive fire safety measures for occupancies that care for vulnerable persons. Already passed, the legislation requires certain undertakings by Fire Officials to ensure the occupancies are in compliance. The new requirements holds the owners and responsible persons as well as the Fire Dept accountable for certain actions to ensure occupants have a safe occupancy ( dwelling) as well as ensuring safe egress from a facility during a fire. Detailed analysis by Fire Officials is required and all must be measured and reported to the Province by certain dates in order to comply. Current staffing capacity has been examined using service performance development staff at the City. 3000 additional hours will be required. The additional staff will assist. Current staff resources have been reviewed and adjusted to contribute to the remaining hours not covered by the new FTE. Current inspectors complete a combined 7000 hours of work per year exclusive of negotiated leave provisions. Compliance to the legislation is being closely monitored and reported to the Mayor Office by the Ontario Fire Marshal. Non compliance will be reported and made public by the Province under MFIPPA. The benefit of the new position will assist with shared rental housing that arises from complaint based requests for fire safety in a student or shared rental housing environment .This differs from a Zoning Officer because the Inspector deals immediately with life safety issues that may or may not be a zoning problem. In addition immediate threats are dealt with by the Inspector at the time in order to ensure the resident has a minimum level of fire safety in the dwelling as required by legislation. Leaving a known fire safety issue that is an immediate threat exposes the Inspector to liability.
32
Adult School Crossing Guards:
Legislated – Municipalities are not legally obligated to provide a school crossing program. However, once Council, as it did in 2004, decided to establish a school crossing program we become responsible for it. It would be at Council direction to remove the City from the program. Under the Highway Traffic Act a school crossing guard must either be employed by the municipality or employed by a corporation under contract with the municipality to provide the services of a school crossing guard. Risk and Liability - The City is essentially providing a school crossing guard service to the parents of the children who use the crossings. Those parents rely on the service the City has said it will provide. If the City should suddenly be unable to provide the service (for example if a guard should be ill or we cannot place a guard where it is warranted within a reasonable time frame) there is no practical way for the City to notify those parents that there will be no service, or for those parents (if they were somehow notified) to obtain their own replacement service. If the City did not provide the service in such a circumstance, the City could indeed be at risk for liability if any injury should occur in the guard’s absence. So in summary, as we currently provide the service and place guards as they become warranted either on a temporary or permanent basis, we do run a risk when we cannot provide a service that has been approved by Council.
EMS (Full Time Paramedics & Supervisor Backfill): The provision of EMS is a legislated requirement. There are repercussions under legislation for not providing EMS services to adequate levels. There is also a risk that has been trending that we can't meet Council approved targets with existing resources. The performance of the service across the coverage area is dropping below acceptable standards. Compounding the problem is a lack of balanced supervision across a 2600 square km coverage area. This is impacting staff's ability to manage system issues to ensure coverage is quickly reinstated after an emergency incident. There is both risk and liability through current legislation. f e fail to correct deficiencies the ro ince may choose to ithdra our certification to o erate a ser ice . The risk is we will not be fulfilling our obligation as the consolidated service manager with the County. This may negatively impact relationships with other level of Governments.
Corporate Server Specialist: As the City grows, use of corporate applications and online public services are used more frequently. This, in turn, requires additional storage and network capacity. Maintenance of this infrastructure is critical to ensure services are stable and remain available to staff and the public. Not managing this upkeep in a proactive way can lead to system failure and downtime. As the back end requirements have grown over the years, the human resource capacity within the Technology Services section has not. The Corporate Server Specialist (CSS) position is in response to the growth of the organization over the last several years. The cost of the CSS position is set to offset the consulting and OT costs IT has traditionally used to fill the gap over the last 2-3 years and would expect to incur in following years (ie. the FTE has been submitted as a “zero dollar ex ansion”). The rocess of using consultants in an ad hoc ay to su ort the back end of IT is often inefficient as staff is required to bring the temporary resource up to speed and provide training on our systems and rocesses before they can ro ide full su ort to them. This “training and orientation” must be re eated for e ery outside tem orary resource de loyed. Use of OT is required as system maintenance is often required to be performed after hours so as to minimize the impact of taking systems offline. An additional CSS would allow for a flexed schedule with which to provide this support which would avoid use of OT to deal with standard maintenance issues all together.
33
Some of the largest impacts over the last two years which have ultimately increased the workload within the Technology Services division, are:
Substantial increased capacity to City server farms to support growth of data and expanded use of corporate applications
Installation of a redundant network with the Clair Rd data centre
Implementation of the Transit Technology Plan (Trapeze) The potential risks associated with not approving the resource are:
Inefficient use of funding to provide on demand support for a an ongoing operational need
Inadequate resources deployed to control and protect the related infrastructure can lead to data loss (eg. privacy breaches, loss of critical information)
Loss of confidence in the organization could result if servers are not maintained, secured, and replaced according to life cycle best practices (eg. Guelph.ca going offline)
Downtime can result if resources are not in place to keep up with the demand to procure and maintain infrastructure to support corporate applications (eg. online services offline)
Implementation of the Corporate Technology Strategic Plan could be delayed if the back end infrastructure is not built and maintained to support modernized platforms (eg. collaboration tools, open data, information management)
34
Tax Supported FTE’s – Recommended Positions
Q23.1. It is our understanding there have been some questions related to the recommended
expansion requests in the 2015 budget. The attached chart provides more information for
each of the expansion requests related to how the position is funded and the purpose of the
position.
A23.1. The attached chart addresses this question regarding Tax Supported FTE’s – Recommended Positions
35
PR
OP
OSE
D N
EW P
OSI
TIO
NS
- C
ITY
DEP
AR
TMEN
TS O
NLY
Re
serv
eR
eal
loca
tio
n o
f
Exis
tin
g Fu
nd
sTa
xO
the
rSe
rvic
e/o
pe
rati
on
bas
ed
(C
RIT
ICA
L*)
Serv
ice
/op
era
tio
n
bas
ed
(N
ON
-CR
ITIC
AL)
Stra
tegi
c In
itia
tiv e
s
Co
ntr
ol R
oo
m S
up
ervi
sor
(4 in
20
15
; 2
in 2
01
6)
4Tr
ansi
tX
X
Op
en G
ov
Pro
g ram
Man
ager
1C
AO
XX
Co
rpo
rate
Ser
ver
Spec
ialis
t
(In
tern
al A
ud
it R
eco
mm
end
atio
n)1
1IT
XX
Res
ou
rce
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Insp
ecto
r
(10
0%
Bu
ildin
g P
erm
it F
un
ded
)
AP
PR
OV
ED
1B
uild
ing
XX
Fire
Pre
ven
tio
n O
ffic
er1
Fire
XX
Ad
ult
Sch
oo
l Cro
ssin
g G
uar
ds
5Tr
affi
c &
Par
kin
gX
X
Full
Tim
e P
aram
e dic
s3
EMS
XX
Sup
ervi
sor
Bac
kfill
0.8
EMS
XX
Man
ager
, Co
rp A
sset
Man
agem
ent
1Fi
nan
ceX
X
Stra
tegi
st, C
orp
Ass
et M
anag
emen
t1
Fin
ance
XX
Gra
ph
ic D
esig
ner
21
Co
rp
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
sX
X
TOTA
L N
EW F
TE's
19
.8
Cit
y o
f G
uel
ph
No
tes:
(1)
The
Co
rpo
rate
Ser
ver
Spec
ialis
t is
bei
ng
reco
mm
end
ed b
y st
aff
in r
esp
on
se t
o t
he
Ove
rtim
e an
d C
on
sult
ants
inte
rnal
au
dit
s w
hic
h s
tate
d t
hat
if t
her
e w
as/i
s an
on
goin
g p
atte
rn o
f u
sin
g
con
sult
ants
or
ove
rtim
e to
do
wo
rk, c
on
sid
er b
rin
gin
g th
e w
ork
in h
ou
se o
r su
pp
lem
enti
ng
staf
f w
ith
ad
dit
ion
al F
TE’s
rat
her
th
an s
pen
d t
hro
ugh
co
nsu
ltin
g o
r o
vert
ime
. Th
is p
osi
tio
n is
bei
ng
fun
ded
thro
ugh
a r
edu
ctio
n in
ove
rtim
e an
d c
on
sult
ing
do
llars
wh
ich
ref
lect
s h
ow
th
e w
ork
has
bee
n f
un
ded
in t
he
pas
t. A
dd
itio
n in
form
atio
n r
elat
ed t
o t
his
po
siti
on
is f
ou
nd
on
pag
e 2
-33
an
d 2
-34
of
the
Tax
Sup
po
rted
Op
erat
ing
Bu
dge
t.
(2)
The
Gra
ph
ic D
esig
ner
is b
ein
g fu
nd
ed t
hro
ugh
a r
edu
ctio
n in
oth
er d
epar
tmen
tal b
ud
gets
wh
ere
the
grap
hic
des
ign
fu
nct
ion
is c
urr
entl
y o
uts
ou
rced
to
ext
ern
al o
rgan
izat
ion
s. A
dd
itio
nal
info
rmai
ton
rel
ated
to
th
is p
osi
tio
n is
fo
un
d o
n p
age
2-5
3 &
2-5
4 o
f th
e Ta
x Su
pp
ort
ed O
per
atin
g b
ud
get.
*CR
ITIC
AL
PO
SITI
ON
- P
rop
ose
d p
osi
tio
ns
are
req
uir
ed b
y ch
ange
s in
legi
slat
ion
an
d t
o p
rovi
de
a le
vel o
f sa
fety
to
th
e p
ub
lic t
hat
has
bee
n id
enti
fied
as
an a
rea
of
risk
to
th
e re
sid
ents
of
the
Pu
rpo
se o
f P
osi
tio
n
Po
siti
on
FTE
Imp
act
De
par
tme
nt
Ho
w P
osi
tio
n is
fu
nd
ed
36
Corporate Asset Management FTE versus Consultant
Q24.1. What are the possible advantages and disadvantages of hiring a consultant to
develop and implement the Capital Asset Management Plan rather than developing
full time, in-house staff dedicated to asset management?
Answered by Jade Surgeoner, Senior Corporate Analyst, Financial Reporting and Accounting Corporate Services A24.1. Hiring a consultant to establish and operationalize asset management planning was
considered by staff. However, for the following reasons staff feel that dedicated fulltime
resources would be more effective:
• The timeline to successfully operationalize asset management planning is between 3 and 5
years. An initial plan could be established in less time, but to have it fully integrated into
our operations and driving the capital budget process would take significantly longer. Once
implemented, the planning needs to be updated and monitored as asset management
standards change and to drive prioritization of ongoing investments.
• The Ministry of Economic Development, Employment & Infrastructure has acknowledged
that municipalities have a lot of work to complete over the next ten years to address
infrastructure challenges. With significant changes expected in the future related to funding
programs and reporting requirements, staff feel it is important that in-house expertise be
developed to address these items.
• Asset management planning needs to be flexible to accommodate unanticipated
challenges. Having dedicated staff available to develop and implement new approaches is
imperative to ensuring effectiveness and sustainability.
• All areas of the City need to be involved in developing and implementing the corporate
asset strategic and tactical decisions. Departments will be required to select and implement
new asset management approaches in addition to their current activities, this will require
additional resources as well. Having dedicated corporate resources to guide and support
these activities will mitigate the risk of reverting back to old practices and continuing the
status quo. Without dedicated corporate resources individual City areas risk developing
their own plans in isolation that do not fit with the overall corporate policy.
37
The development of a dedicated asset management team is the preferred method of tackling
this substantial issue and is the consistent approach for municipalities across Canada. Asset
Management is a monumental shift in the way governments approach the long term planning
and maintenance of their infrastructure. Developing in-house resources that will not only lead
planning and implementation but also advocate for continued funding and recognition from
other levels of government will be key to ensuring the resources are available to be successful.
Proposed New Positions
Q25.1. Which of the proposed new positions are required by changes in legislation ?
Which of the proposed new positions are required to provide a level of safety to the public
that has previously been identified as an area of risk to the residents of the city of Guelph?
What new positions prevent damage to personal property of the residents?
A25.1. The attached document provides staffs’ responses to both the New FTE and the Proposed
New Positions questions.
38
PR
OP
OSE
D N
EW P
OSI
TIO
NS
Po
siti
on
FTE
Imp
act
De
par
tme
nt
CA
T 1
CA
T 2
CA
T 3
Fro
nt
line
(Y
es
or
No
)N
ON
E
Co
ntr
ol R
oo
m S
up
ervi
sor
(4 in
20
15
; 2 in
20
16
)4
Tran
sit
XYe
s -
All
Op
en G
ov
Pro
gram
Man
ager
1C
AO
No
X
Co
rpo
rate
Ser
ver
Spec
ialis
t
(In
tern
al A
ud
it R
eco
mm
end
atio
n)
1IT
Yes
X
Res
ou
rce
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Insp
ecto
r
(10
0%
Bu
ildin
g P
erm
it F
un
ded
)
AP
PR
OV
ED1
Bu
ildin
gX
Yes
Fire
Pre
ven
tio
n O
ffic
er1
Fire
XYe
s
Ad
ult
Sch
oo
l Cro
ssin
g G
uar
ds
5Tr
affi
c &
Par
kin
gX
Yes-
All
Full
Tim
e P
aram
edic
s3
EMS
XYe
s
Sup
ervi
sor
Bac
kfill
0.8
EMS
XYe
s
Man
ager
, Co
rp A
sset
Man
agem
ent
1Fi
nan
ceN
oX
Stra
tegi
st, C
orp
Ass
et M
anag
emen
t1
Fin
ance
No
X
Gra
ph
ic D
esig
ner
1
Co
rp
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
sN
oX
TOTA
L N
EW F
TE's
19
.8
CA
T 2
- W
hic
h o
f th
e p
rop
ose
d n
ew p
osi
tio
ns
are
req
uir
ed t
o p
rovi
de
a le
vel o
f sa
fety
to
th
e p
ub
lic t
hat
has
pre
vio
usl
y b
een
iden
fied
as
an a
rea
of
risk
to
th
e re
sid
ents
of
the
Cit
y o
f G
uel
ph
?
CA
T 3
- W
hat
new
po
siti
on
s p
reve
nt
dam
age
to p
erso
nal
pro
per
ty o
f th
e re
sid
ents
?
Fro
ntl
ine
(Y
es
or
No
) -
Ho
w m
any
new
FTE
s ar
e p
rop
ose
d in
th
e ex
pan
sio
n a
nd
ho
w m
any
of
tho
se F
TEs
are
fro
nt
line
wo
rker
s p
rovi
din
g se
rvic
e to
res
iden
ts o
f th
e ci
ty o
f G
uel
ph
CA
T 1
- W
hic
h o
f th
e p
rop
ose
d n
ew p
osi
tio
ns
are
req
uir
ed b
y ch
ange
s in
legi
slat
ion
?
39
New FTEs
Q26.1. How many new FTEs are proposed in the expansion and how many of those FTEs are front line
workers providing service to residents of the city of Guelph.
A26.1. The attached document provides staffs’ responses to both the New FTE and the Proposed New Positions questions.
40
PR
OP
OSE
D N
EW P
OSI
TIO
NS
Po
siti
on
FTE
Imp
act
De
par
tme
nt
CA
T 1
CA
T 2
CA
T 3
Fro
nt
line
(Y
es
or
No
)N
ON
E
Co
ntr
ol R
oo
m S
up
ervi
sor
(4 in
20
15
; 2 in
20
16
)4
Tran
sit
XYe
s -
All
Op
en G
ov
Pro
gram
Man
ager
1C
AO
No
X
Co
rpo
rate
Ser
ver
Spec
ialis
t
(In
tern
al A
ud
it R
eco
mm
end
atio
n)
1IT
Yes
X
Res
ou
rce
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Insp
ecto
r
(10
0%
Bu
ildin
g P
erm
it F
un
ded
)
AP
PR
OV
ED1
Bu
ildin
gX
Yes
Fire
Pre
ven
tio
n O
ffic
er1
Fire
XYe
s
Ad
ult
Sch
oo
l Cro
ssin
g G
uar
ds
5Tr
affi
c &
Par
kin
gX
Yes-
All
Full
Tim
e P
aram
edic
s3
EMS
XYe
s
Sup
ervi
sor
Bac
kfill
0.8
EMS
XYe
s
Man
ager
, Co
rp A
sset
Man
agem
ent
1Fi
nan
ceN
oX
Stra
tegi
st, C
orp
Ass
et M
anag
emen
t1
Fin
ance
No
X
Gra
ph
ic D
esig
ner
1
Co
rp
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
sN
oX
TOTA
L N
EW F
TE's
19
.8
CA
T 2
- W
hic
h o
f th
e p
rop
ose
d n
ew p
osi
tio
ns
are
req
uir
ed t
o p
rovi
de
a le
vel o
f sa
fety
to
th
e p
ub
lic t
hat
has
pre
vio
usl
y b
een
iden
fied
as
an a
rea
of
risk
to
th
e re
sid
ents
of
the
Cit
y o
f G
uel
ph
?
CA
T 3
- W
hat
new
po
siti
on
s p
reve
nt
dam
age
to p
erso
nal
pro
per
ty o
f th
e re
sid
ents
?
Fro
ntl
ine
(Y
es
or
No
) -
Ho
w m
any
new
FTE
s ar
e p
rop
ose
d in
th
e ex
pan
sio
n a
nd
ho
w m
any
of
tho
se F
TEs
are
fro
nt
line
wo
rker
s p
rovi
din
g se
rvic
e to
res
iden
ts o
f th
e ci
ty o
f G
uel
ph
CA
T 1
- W
hic
h o
f th
e p
rop
ose
d n
ew p
osi
tio
ns
are
req
uir
ed b
y ch
ange
s in
legi
slat
ion
?
41
Departmental Increases
Q27.1. Just point of clarification! City departments: IDE, PS, CS, CAO, and the Mayor are asking for a
7.2% budget increase. The proposed Total Tax levy increase is 4.82% after capital cuts. The
existing guideline is 3.71%. The proposed Individual Residential Tax increase is 3.05%.
Answered by Sarah Purton, Manager, Financial Planning & Budgets Corporate Services
A27.1. City Departments: IDE, PS, CS, CAO and Mayor and Council are requesting a 6.99% increase
including service and strategic investments.
The proposed total tax levy increase is 4.82% after capital cuts and local boards and shared
service requests.
The 2015 predictable formula is 3.71%
The proposed tax levy and PIL requirement for 2015, after prior year assessment growth, is a
3.05% increase over 2014.
Impact of adding $250K to the library reserve
Q28.1. Please provide details of the Library Capital Reserve Fund (#157). Also, please provide
the impact on the 2015 tax supported operating budget of adding $250,000 to this reserve.
Answered by Sarah Purton Manager, Financial Planning & Budgets, Corporate Services A28.1. The purpose of the library capital reserve fund (#157) is to set aside funds for the future
capital construction costs associated with new facilities, thereby reducing our reliance on
debentures as a major funding source for these construction projects. This reserve fund also
has annual contributions that are made to fund the current year’s capital expenditures as
submitted by library.
Transfers into the reserve fund are made at Council’s discretion and could occur as a
budgeted transfer from the operating budget, through the allocation of library’s year end
surplus, or if there is a surplus in an approved capital project that is complete and ready to be
closed.
The impact on the 2015 tax supported operating budget of adding $250,000 is 0.13%.
42
City’s Reserves and Reserve Funds
Q29.1. At the March 11, 2015 budget meeting, Councillor MacKinnon requested greater clarity on
the state of the City’s reserves and reserve funds. Specifically, additional information was
requested around the City’s ability to access emergency funds if required and if emergency
funds were unable to be accessed, could the City access credit.
Answered by Sarah Purton, Manager, Financial Planning & Budgets Corporate Services
A29.1. The City’s reserve and reserve funds are divided into two categories: discretionary and
obligatory.
Discretionary reserves and reserve funds are established at the discretion of Council and
their purpose is to earmark revenues to fund future expenditures or to set aside a portion of
any year’s revenues so the funds are available for future requirements. The funding for these
reserves and reserve funds typically comes from the tax levy or rate supported sources.
Obligatory reserve funds are created when required by Provincial statute and the funds in
these reserve funds can be used solely for the purpose prescribed by statute.
With respect to accessing emergency funds, Council could utilize any uncommitted funds in
the City’s discretionary reserves and reserve funds to deal with an emergency or unplanned
situation because those reserves are created and used at the discretion of Council. Use of
certain discretionary reserve funds, such as water and wastewater, would need to be
considered an internal loan, and would require a by-law outlining the term and rate of the
loan.
At the end of 2015, staff are forecasting that there will be approximately $81.8 million in
uncommitted funds in the City’s discretionary reserves and reserve funds. This supports both
our year end reporting and Standard and Poor’s assessment that the City is in a strong
liquidity position.
Consequences of using reserve and reserve funds is that balances are considered during the
credit rating process. So, a reduction in the balances could have a negative impact on the
City’s rating. In addition, depending on which fund is accessed, there could be impacts on
future operating or capital plans.
Should the City be in a position where it is not possible to use reserves and reserve funds to
deal with any emergency, staff are confident that the City would be able to secure a line of
credit with our financial institution. This would require that Council approve a by-law requesting
that the City secure these funds.
43
2016 City Budget Increase
Q30.1. The 2016 forecast increase for city departments is 9.2%. Are city departments not following
the budget guideline of 3.7% annually?
Answered by Sarah Purton, Manager, Financial Planning & Budgets Corporate Services
A30.1. The 2016 forecast is prepared for information only. The information reflected in the 9.20% for
City departments, and general and capital financing reflects the assumptions outlined on
page 3-2. For 2016, the major impact is the capital financing section which reflects funding
levels increasing from approximately 16.1% of the prior year net tax levy to 18%. This is an
estimate based on current trends and known costs assuming existing Council approved
service levels. It does not reflect what will or will not be presented for Council consideration
in its deliberation of the 2016 Tax Supported Operating Budget nor the 2017 forecast.
With respect to the 3.71% guideline derived through the predictable formula, the guideline applies to total tax supported budget (City departments, general and capital financing and local boards and shared services, etc) and relates to the year for which staff are seeking approval. Note, that this is a guideline only and staff would be seeking to bring forward a recommended budget that reflects actual expenditure pressures and revenues with this formula in mind but not as derived by this formula which is a separate exercise to help guide the work.
Public Health Budget Clarity
Q31.1. At the March 5, 2015 budget meeting, Councillor Billings requested that staff
provide clarity on the budget request for public health.
Answered by Sarah Purton, Manager, Financial Planning & Budget Services Corporate Services A31.1 Please see the following document:
44
The below chart was presented at the February 26, 2015 budget meeting by David Kennedy, Director, Finance & Corporate Operations at WDG Public Health.
Note to above chart: WDGPH signed a Financial Agreement with the City of Guelph, County of Wellington, and County of Dufferin in December 2012. Under this agreement, the three municipalities would loan WDGPH the funds required to build the two new Public Health facilities in Guelph and Orangeville. This loan will be repaid over 20 years. Repayments began in June 2014. The City of Guelph has amortized the loan over 10 years, resulting in higher annual Long Term Debt charges on the City’s budget than on WDGPH’s budget. This is correct and accurately reflects the net tax levy impact on the City’s budget as shown on page 3-1 of your Local Boards & Shared Services budget binder. With respect to the impact from capital information shown on page i.x of the 2015-2017 Tax Supported Capital Budget and page i.xiii of the 2015 Tax Supported Operating budget, the $83,630 identified for public health is a typo. This should read $583,630 and represents that year over year change to the City’s long term debt charges. This number is calculated as follows and is included in the $3.9M City requirement to fund Public Health:
Notes: 2015 is the first year that principal was budgeted for due to the timing that it becomes owing. The year over year reduction to the interest payments is due to the internal debt issue approved in mid-2014. The 2014 budget had assumed an external issue at a higher interest rate. The purpose of page i.x in the Tax Supported Operating budget and page i.xiii in the Tax Supported Capital Budget is to highlight the on-going operating costs associated with specific capital projects. The actual debt financing costs of $950,500 is only budgeted within the Public Health Unit line item of the operating budget, and is not included within the capital budget.
45
% Municipal Tax Burden
Q32.1. Does the graph on page i.v. show “local tax/local mean household income”? i.e. Average
Oakville Tax per household/Mean Oakville household income.
Answer provided by Sarah Purton, Manager, Financial Planning & Budgets Corporate Services
A32.1. This information comes from the 2014 BMA Municipal Study. The graph shows the 2014 Total
Municipal Burden as a per cent of household income. This is calculated as:
2014 Total Municipal Tax Burden/2013 Average Household Income.
More specifically, this information is based on the following:
2013 Average Household Income based on information from Manifold Data Mining, 2014,
summarized by geographical area
2014 Total Municipal Tax Burden which is a combination of the 2014 Residential Taxes on
a typical home + 2014 Residential Water and Wastewater costs (assuming usage of
200m/3).
Assessment Growth
Q33.1. Is the $3.73M actual or estimated assessment growth?
Answered by Sarah Purton, Manager, Financial Planning & Budgets Corporate Services
A33.1. $3.373M is the actual assessment growth.
46
