mtstdmanagement study final report - midland documents/kpmg-final...mtstdmanagement study final...

Corporation of theCorporation of the Town of Midland

M t St dManagement Study Final Report

October 1, 2012

Town of Midland Management StudyAgenda

Executive Summary 1

I. Study Overview 4

II. Environmental Scan 11

III. Service Level Baselines 17

IV St ffi A l i 28IV. Staffing Analysis 28

V. Council Structure 33

VI. Opportunities for Consideration 36

VII. Financial Projections 46

VIII. Concluding Comments 49

Appendix A – Service level matrices

Appendix B – Municipal comparative indicators

Appendix C – Financial projections

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

1

Town of Midland Management StudyExecutive Summary

Over the past decade, the Town of Midland (the Town) has experienced increases in its municipal levy that have averaged 5.5% peryear, with taxes increasing by 9% to 10% in certain years. In recent years, however, Council has attempted to maintain taxationincreases at an affordable level, with the 2012 budget process resulting in a 1% tax increase.

As a means of both controlling future tax increases and streamlining its 2013 budget process, Council has requested that three scenarios be presented for next year’s budget that consider a 2% increase in taxes, no increase in taxes and a 2% decrease in taxes. Achieving these scenarios requires the Town to realize operating cost reductions or incremental revenues in the range of $343,000 to $1,033,000 in 2013.

In order to assist the Town with the identification of potential opportunities for cost reductions and incremental revenues, KPMG was retained to undertake a management study that involved an evaluation of the Town’s operations, personnel and financial performance with the view of identifying options for maintaining adequate service levels while allowing for long-term sustainable budgets to be met.

The management study process identified the fact that in a number of instances, the Town’s service levels are higher than minimum standards and those adopted by comparator municipalities with similar populations and other characteristics, allowing the Town to reduce services to an acceptable level while reducing costs as well. Additional opportunities were identified through strategies focused on user fees and other non-taxation revenue sources, staff attrition and changes to the Town’s internal processes. Overall, the management study identified a total of $1.75 million in potential savings that could be realized between 2013 and 2016, providing Council with a range of potential options for both the short to mid-term. Initial indications from Council demonstrate support for at least $560,000 of non-personnel savings, which is estimated to provide for a 0.2% increase in the Town’s municipal levy during 2013. As Council proceeds with the 2013 budget process, additional opportunities will be brought forward for consideration, allowing Council to determine which options to pursue.

We recognize that the ultimate decision as to type and level of services provided by the Town rests with Council and we trust that our report assists with the decision-making process.


2

Corporation of the Town ofCorporation of the Town of Midland Management Study

Ch t IChapter IStudy Overview

Study OverviewTerms of Reference

The terms of reference for our engagement were established in the Town’s request for proposal document dated March 21, 2012. Asoutlined in the request for proposal document, the objectives of the management study include:

• A description and evaluation of the Town’s operation structure and service levels;

• Commentary on the Town’s operating effectiveness and efficiency, using service level benchmarks and comparative best practices;practices;

• Options for maintaining adequate service levels while allowing long-term sustainable budget objectives to be met.

The terms of reference for the management study considered the following components:

Component Section of Report

1. An environmental scan that summarizes the major factors affecting the Town’s cost structure and staffing levels

Chapter IIAppendix A

2. The development of service level baselines for comparison to the Town’s service level standards and practices;

Chapter IIIAppendix B

4. An analysis of staffing levels, including staffing levels by department and opportunities for potential changes in light of existing and potential levels of

Chapter IVAdditional information provided underopportunities for potential changes in light of existing and potential levels of

service, compensation levels for comparator communities and comments concerning succession planning;

Additional information provided under separate cover.

6. An analysis of Council composition and commentary of potential opportunities for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness.

Chapter V

3. An evaluation of the Town’s current service delivery, including t iti f h d ffi i i d t i

Chapter VIopportunities for enhanced efficiencies and cost savings;

5. The development of financial forecasts projecting the Town’s anticipated financial performance and the degree of congruence with Council’s budgetary direction.

Chapter VIIAppendix C


4

Study OverviewMethodology

The development of the management study involved the following major worksteps:

1. Environmental scan

• Historical financial information for the Town, including audited financial statements, internal financial statements, Financial Information Returns and annual budgets were summarized and reviewed to identify factors influencing operating costs, non-taxation revenues and municipal leviestaxation revenues and municipal levies.

• Historical information relating to staffing levels was summarized and reviewed to identify staffing levels by department and thenature of year-over-year staffing changes.

• Meetings were held with representatives of the Town’s management group to review the Town’s financial performance and personnel trends.

2. Service level baseline

• An initial working session was held with the Town’s management group to identify:

• Services provided

• The rationale for the delivery of the service (mandated, expected, discretionary)

Th i d li d l (i t l l t t t d t h d i )• The service delivery model (internal resources, volunteers, contracted out, shared service)

• The targeted service level

This information was summarized in the form of service matrices, which have been included in Appendix A to this report.

• Additional information and documentation relating to the Town’s services and service levels, including previous studies, analyses and reports to Council, were reviewed.

• Discussions were held with Town management concerning appropriate municipal comparators, based on the following considerations:

• Population

• Households

• Geography


5

• Distribution of services between upper and lower tiers

• Role as a regional centre


2. Service level baseline (continued)

• Based on these considerations, the following communities were selected as municipal comparators

Community Population1 Households2 Area1

1. Midland 16,572 7,605 35.37

2. Collingwood 19,241 10,013 33.46

3. Wasaga Beach 17,537 11,987 58.43

4. Port Hope 16,214 6,750 279.033

12

4

• Information concerning municipal services, operating costs, staffing levels, management compensation, organizational structures and other aspects of the comparator municipalities was obtained through interviews with the comparator municipalities and analysis of available documentation (including information provided by the municipalities, information obtained through the municipalities’ websites and other information such as Financial Information Returns).

• Information concerning service levels for Ontario municipalities was also obtained from other sources, including the Office of the Fire Marshal, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ontario Good Roads Association, Ontario Library Service and the Ministry ofMunicipal Affairs and Housing.


6

1 Statistics Canada census profile, 2011 census data.2 Municipal Financial Information Return Schedule 02, 2010.


3. Current service delivery

• At the beginning of the management study, a Council survey was conducted to determine Council’s position with respect to taxation levels, municipal services (specifically whether services could be eliminated, reduced, maintained or enhanced), alternative means of delivering services and staffing reductions.

• A second working session was held with the Town’s management group to identify potential opportunities for enhancing• A second working session was held with the Town s management group to identify potential opportunities for enhancing efficiencies, reducing operating costs and increasing non-taxation revenues, as well as potential risks associated with each of the opportunities.

• A presentation of the potential opportunities was made to Council, who were then surveyed to determine the level of support for the identified options and whether they should be considered as part of the Town’s 2013 budget process.

• Individual meetings were held with department directors to discuss potential opportunities involving personnel, which were presented to Council during a closed meeting 1presented to Council during a closed meeting. 1

• Members of the public were invited to provide their input as to potential opportunities for Council consideration, both at a public meeting and by way of written submissions.

• KPMG identified additional opportunities based on our experience with other Ontario municipalities and similar service delivery reviews.

4. Staffing levelsg

• Information concerning the Town’s current and historical staffing levels was summarized and reviewed.

• Information concerning staffing levels by department/function were obtained for the comparator municipalities and compared tothe Town’s current staffing levels by department.

• Salary grids for non-union personnel for the comparator municipalities were obtained and compared to the Town’s salary grid for non-union personnel in order to identify areas of significant difference.

• Organizational charts for the comparator municipalities were obtained and compared to the Town’s current organizational structure in order to identify areas of significant difference.

• KPMG reviewed the Town’s current organizational structure and lines of reporting based on our experience with other Ontario municipalities and provided our comments concerning potential adjustments that could be considered.

• A summary of potential employee retirements (i.e. employees entitled to retire with non-reduced pensions) to December 31, 2016 was reviewed to assess the potential attrition rate for Town employees and associated financial impact.


7

p p y p

1 As the opportunities were presented in a closed session, Council was not surveyed as to their support for the opportunities.


5. Financial forecasts

• An initial meeting was held with the Town’s CAO and Director of Finance to review the Town’s financial performance and identify anticipated changes in non-taxation revenues and operating costs, as well as the Town’s capital forecast.

• Initial financial projections were prepared that indicated the potential changes to the municipal levy based on known future changes to the Town’s financial environment but excluding the implementation of potential opportunities identified during thechanges to the Town s financial environment but excluding the implementation of potential opportunities identified during thecourse of the management study.

• Additional financial projections were prepared that considered the potential implementation of opportunities identified through the management study and the associated impact on the municipal tax levy and water and wastewater rates.

• A high level analysis of the Town’s capital requirements and funding was prepared to determine potential strategies for ongoing capital expenditures and associated financing.

6. Council composition

• Information concerning Council structure and compensation for the comparator communities was obtained and compared to the Town’s Council structure and compensation arrangements in order to identify potential opportunities for Council’s consideration.


8

Study OverviewRestrictions

This report is based on information and documentation that was made available to KPMG at the date of this report. KPMG has not audited nor otherwise attempted to independently verify the information provided unless otherwise indicated. Should additional information be provided to KPMG after the issuance of this report, KPMG reserves the right (but will be under no obligation) to review this information and adjust its comments accordingly.

Pursuant to the terms of our engagement, it is understood and agreed that all decisions in connection with the implementation ofadvice and recommendations as provided by KPMG during the course of this engagement shall be the responsibility of, and made by,the Town of Midland. KPMG has not and will not perform management functions or make management decisions for the Town of Midland.

This report includes or makes reference to future oriented financial information. Readers are cautioned that since these financial projections are based on assumptions regarding future events, actual results will vary from the information presented even if the hypotheses occur, and the variations may be material.

Comments in this report are not intended, nor should they be interpreted, to be legal advice or opinion.

KPMG has no present or contemplated interest in the Town of Midland nor are we an insider or associate of the Town of Midland orits management team. Our fees for this engagement are not contingent upon our findings or any other event. Accordingly, we believe we are independent of the Town of Midland and are acting objectively.


9


Ch t IIChapter IIEnvironmental Scan

Environmental ScanOverview of the Town’s Financial Performance

The Town’s 2012 budget reflects a total municipal levy of $17.3 million1 which, when combined with $10.6 million in other revenues, will fund a total of $27.9 million in operating costs ($23.1 million), debt servicing costs ($1.7 million) and contributions to reserves ($3.1 million)

Since 2003, the Town’s municipal levy has increased by an average of $730,000, or 5.5% per year. In comparison, the average annual increase in upper tier (Simcoe County) taxes paid by Midland ratepayers was 3.8% over the same period, while the Consumer Price Index increased by 1.9% annually since 2002.

It is important to note, however, that the annual increases in the Town’s municipal levy have fluctuated significantly from year to year, with several large annual increases experienced during 2004 (8.9%) and 2006 (10.1%). Between 2008 and 2012, the average annual increase in the Town’s municipal levy has been 3.7%, which includes a 1% levy increase in 2012.

Total municipal levy – 2003 to 2012 (millions of dollars)2 Annual change in municipal levy – 2003 to 20122

$14 9

$15.4

$16.2

$17.1 $17.3

$16

$17

$18

8.9%

10.1%

8%

10%

12%

$12.1

$13.3

$14.1

$14.9

$13

$14

$15

3.9%

5.8% 6.0%

3.2%

5.0%5.5%

4%

6%

$10.7

$11.6

$12.1

$10

$11

$12

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1.0%

0%

2%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


11

1 For the purposes of our report, municipal levy includes payments-in-lieu but excludes supplementary taxes, amounts levied for the Downtown Midland Business Improvement Area, write-offs and rebates.

2 Source – Municipal Financial Information Returns (Schedule 22, Schedule 24), Town of Midland taxation bylaws and internal financial information provided by management.


For the most part, the increase in the Town’s municipal levy since 2008 ($2.33 million) appears to be the result of increased operating costs, which have increased from $20.3 million in 2008 to $22.9 million in 2012, a change of $2.6 million.

(in thousands) 2008 (Budget) 2012 (Budget) Change in Taxation

Comparison of municipal operating costs, other revenues and taxation funding – 2008 to 2012

Taxation Funding Operating

Costs1Other

Revenues2TaxationFunding

OperatingCosts1

Other Revenues2

TaxationFunding

Administration3 $2,430 $412 $2,018 $2,439 $290 $2,149 $131

Planning and development4 $275 $28 $247 $323 $38 $285 $38

Fire $1,826 $35 $1,791 $2,305 $8 $2,297 $506

Police $4,300 $1,009 $3,291 $5,023 $775 $4,248 $957

Parks and recreation $3,066 $978 $2,088 $3,518 $1,237 $2,281 $193

Library $812 $123 $689 $1,022 $168 $854 $165

Public works $3,386 $112 $3,274 $3,925 $302 $3,623 $349

Water $1,643 $1,643 ‒ $1,800 $1,800 ‒ ‒

Wastewater $1,966 $1,966 ‒ $1,931 $1,931 ‒ ‒

Building controls $347 $347 ‒ $340 $135 $205 $205

Parking $231 $231 ‒ $224 $224 ‒ ‒

Total $20,282 $6,884 $13,398 $22,850 $6,908 $15,942 $2,544

Oth it 5 $1 520 $1 309 ($211)

1 Represents operating costs only (wages, benefits, materials, supplies, contract services) and excludes debt servicing costs or contributions to reserves.2 Represents non-taxation revenue sources generated by the specific department (e.g. user fees, permit fees, rental revenue).3 Includes Council, CA), finance, human resources, clerks, health and safety, bylaw enforcement (excluding parking), animal control and financial contributions to the Huronia

Airport Huronia Museum and Midland Area Chamber of Commerce

Other items5 $1,520 $1,309 ($211)

Municipal levy6 $14,918 $17,251 $2,333


12

Airport, Huronia Museum and Midland Area Chamber of Commerce.4 Includes Heritage Committee and Committee of Adjustment.5 Includes debt servicing costs, contributions to reserves for operating and capital purposes, tax write-offs and rebates and revenues not specific to individual departments,

including supplementary taxes, interest and penalties and business improvement area levies.6 For the purposes of our report, municipal levy includes payments-in-lieu levies.


In terms of expenditures by type, personnel-related costs account for almost 70% of the Town’s operating costs, with the majority of these costs represented by full-time wages (45.3% of total operating costs) and employee benefits (13.9% of total operating costs). Since 2008, personnel costs have increased from $13.2 million to a budgeted amount of $15.7 million for 2012.

Budgeted operating costs by type (2012)1

(in thousands) Compensation Other Costs5

Total Costs

Council & Boards2

Full-timeWages

Part-timeWages3

Overtime and Other4

Benefits Total

Administration $254 $1,144 $64 $2 $323 $1,787 $652 $2,439

Planning and development $2 $202 $21 ‒ $57 $282 $41 $323

Fire ‒ $1,416 $119 $119 $398 $2,052 $253 $2,305

Police $18 $3,202 $250 $136 $946 $4,552 $471 $5,023

Parks and recreation ‒ $1,238 $526 $12 $408 $2,184 $1,334 $3,518

Library ‒ $351 $301 $5 $139 $796 $226 $1,022

Public works ‒ $1,231 $189 $90 $439 $1,949 $1,976 $3,925

Water ‒ $744 $20 $29 $224 $1,017 $783 $1,800

Wastewater ‒ $588 $19 $19 $172 $798 $1,133 $1,931

Building controls ‒ $185 ‒ $1 $53 $239 $101 $340

Parking ‒ $45 ‒ ‒ $14 $59 $165 $224

Total $274 $10 346 $1 509 $413 $3 173 $15 715 $7 135 $22 850Total $274 $10,346 $1,509 $413 $3,173 $15,715 $7,135 $22,850

Percentage of total 1.2% 45.3% 6.6% 1.8% 13.9% 68.8% 31.2% 100.0%

1 Based on the Town’s 2012 approved operating budget


13

1 Based on the Town s 2012 approved operating budget.2 Includes wages and benefits paid to members of Council, Committee of Adjustment and Police Services Board.3 Includes compensation paid to part-time employees, students and volunteer firefighters.4 Includes overtime and standby pay.5 Excludes debt servicing costs and contributions to reserves.


The increase in the Town’s personnel costs reflects a mix of staff additions and regularly salary increases pursuant to the Town’s collective bargaining agreements and non-union salary grids. As noted below, the Town’s full-time staffing complement has increased by six employees between 2008 and 2012, with the largest increase occurring in 2009 when Council approved the following staffing changes:

• Added three full-time fire positions (two fire suppression staff and one training officer);

• Added five full-time parks and recreation position while at the same time eliminating 15 part-time parks and recreation positions;

• Added one full-time administrative staff member for water and wastewater services; and

• Filled one full-time library vacancy with a contractor.

Full-time and part-time staffing levels by department – 2008 to 20121

Full-time employees 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Net Change

Administration 17 17 17 17 17 ‒

Planning and development 3 3 3 3 3 ‒

Fire 14 17 17 17 17 +3

Police 36 36 37 37 37 +1o ce 36 36 3 3 3

Parks and recreation 20 252 23 23 23 +3

Library 7 6 6 6 6 -1

Public works 29 29 28 28 28 -1

Water and wastewater 21 22 22 22 22 +1

Total 147 155 153 153 153 +6

Part-time employees3 83 65 68 67 66 -17

1 Based on personnel information provided by management Information for part time employees represents positions only and does not equate to full time equivalents


14

1 Based on personnel information provided by management. Information for part-time employees represents positions only and does not equate to full-time equivalents.2 The net increase of five full-time parks and recreation staff reflects the transition of 15 part-time positions into seven full-time positions, with the further elimination of two full-

time positions.3 Includes part-time employees and volunteer firefighters but does not includes students. Amounts shown represent part-time positions and do not equate to full-time

equivalents.

Environmental ScanConstraints and Implications

We understand that Council has expressed its intention to limit future increases in operating costs and the municipal levy, with the view of considering three scenarios as part of the 2013 budget process (2% increase, 0% increase, 2% decrease). The Town’s ability to achieve Council’s direction for future taxation increases will be challenged by the following factors:

• Under existing collective bargaining agreements, the Town is committed to annual wage adjustments for its unionized employees, which vary from 1.5% to 4.0% depending on the agreement. Given the significance of payroll costs to the Town (accounting foralmost 70% of operating costs), these wage adjustments will continue to result in pressure on operating costs and the municipal levy.

• Certain employees of the Town are currently in the process of certification and negotiation of a first collective bargaining agreement. We understand that during the certification process, the Town is limited in terms of potential changes to staffing levels, compensation levels and other conditions of employment. Accordingly, the Town’s ability to implement strategies intended to control future increases in labour costs may be limited during the certification process, resulting in the deferral of options until the certification period is completethe certification period is complete.

• Currently, the Town’s personnel levels and operating costs are influenced by its choice of service levels and investment in municipal infrastructure. Achieving meaningful reductions in operating costs may necessitate reductions in service levels for certain municipal functions, which may require the cessation of operation of certain assets. While Council has the authority and responsibility to determine service levels for the Town, the community may respond adversely to service level reductions. Inaddition, cost savings arising from staff reductions may initially be offset by one-time costs (e.g. severance pay, retirement incentives), minimizing the amount of first year savings realized by the Town.


15


Ch t IIIChapter IIIService Level Baseline

Service Level BaselinesHow to Read the Analysis

The service level baselines are intended to provide a comparison of service levels, delivery methods, staffing levels and overall operating costs for the Town against the comparator municipalities (Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Port Hope) and other service level benchmarks that may be relevant.

For the purposes of our report, the service level baselines are presented on a departmental basis (consistent with the Town’s budget structure), with additional detail provided at the sub-departmental level where considered appropriate. For each service level baseline, the following information is presented:

Services Provided

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

Delivery Model

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

Service Level Standard

I f ti i i i i l l d/

Indicators

A i f k fi i l d t ffi i di t fInformation concerning minimum service levels and/or service levels provided by the comparator municipalities as well as an indication as to whether the Town’s current service levels are consistent with, exceed or fall below the minimum/comparable service levels. Please note that for certain services, service level standards are not available.

A comparison of key financial and staffing indicators for the Town against the comparative municipalities. Where the Town’s indicators are higher than the comparator municipalities, they could be indicative of (i) a higher level of service or (ii) the potential for efficiencies and other cost reductions.

Except where noted the indicators have been developedExcept where noted, the indicators have been developed based on 2010 Municipal Financial Information Returns as this represents the last year for which Financial Information Returns are available for the Town.

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions


17

Overall assessment as to the potential for cost reductions based on the differences between the Town’s service levels, delivery model and indicators and those of the comparative municipalities and other service level standards.

Service Level BaselinesAdministration

Services Provided

• Chief Administrative Officer• Treasury• Human resources• Clerks (including licensing)

Delivery Model

• The Town relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for administrative services, with the following exceptions:• Animal control – contracted out

Ai fi i l ib i• Health and safety• Administrative support• Front desk reception• Bylaw enforcement and animal control• Contributions to airport, museum and chamber of

commerce• Crossing guard

C il t

• Airport, museum – financial contribution• Employee benefits – combination own staff and

consultant

• Council support


• Service levels for specific administrative functions are established either by legislation (e.g. Municipal Act,

Indicators

• Administrative wages per household are marginally higher than the comparator municipalities (109% of the

Occupational Health and Safety Act), Town bylaws or collective bargaining agreements. Major aspects of the Town’s administrative functions (e.g. Treasury), however, do not appear to have formally defined service level standards.

average). However, administrative costs as a percentage of total municipal operating costs are lower than the average of the comparator municipalities.

• Staffing levels for administration are consistent with the comparator municipalities, although the analysis indicates differences at the sub-departmental level, with some functions having higher or lower staffing l l h h i i li ilevels than the comparator municipalities.


Moderate – The absence of prescribed service level standards for certain administrative functions combined with indications that staffing costs and levels may be higher in some cases that the comparator municipalities may be indicative of the opportunity to reduce operating costs, recognizing the issues that may emerge as the Town attempts to reduce staffing


18

opportunity to reduce operating costs, recognizing the issues that may emerge as the Town attempts to reduce staffing levels (see page 15).

Service Level BaselinesPlanning and Development

Services Provided

• Planning (variances, zoning amendments, official plan amendments, site plans)

• Committee of Adjustment• Heritage Committee

Delivery Model

• Planning services are provided through the Town’s own resources


• Planning services are provided pursuant to the Municipal Planning Act. The relatively small size of the Town’s planning department (three employees

d t f 7 f th t

Indicators

• Staffing levels for the Town’s planning department are significantly lower than the comparator municipalities.

compared to an average of 7 for the comparator municipalities) is considered to be indicative of a minimum level of service.


Low – The relatively small size of the Town’s planning department, both in terms of staffing levels and operating costs, limits the potential for meaningful cost reductions.


19

Service Level BaselinesFire

Services Provided

• Fire prevention• Fire education• Fire suppression• Inspections and building plan reviews

T i i

Delivery Model

• Fire services are delivered primarily through the Town’s full-time and volunteer firefighters, although mutual aid agreements with other fire services and collaboration with Simcoe County CBRNE Response

• Training• Medical assistance, including ambulance and police

assistance

Team (hazardous materials) exist.


• Fire prevention and education is mandated under the

Indicators

O h h ld b i th T ’ fi t dFire prevention and education is mandated under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

• Under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, Council determines the level of service for fire suppression activities. We understand a formal policy for suppression service levels currently exists; however, the fire service has two levels of response – duty calls, with only the full-time firefighters on duty responding to

• On a per household basis, the Town’s fire costs and firefighter complement are lower than Collingwood but higher than Wasaga Beach (Port Hope has a volunteer fire service and is excluded from the analysis).

• With respect to medical assist calls, Collingwood is identified as a Level B provider, indicating a lower frequency of responses to medical assist calls. However Wasaga Beach is identified as a Level Ay g y p g

the call, and general calls, where volunteers and off-duty full-time firefighters respond to calls.

• Under the current collective bargaining agreement, the Town is required to maintain a minimum of two full-time firefighters on duty at all times.

• Medical assistance activities are provided pursuant to County of Simcoe Emergency Response Agreement,

However, Wasaga Beach is identified as a Level A provider, which is consistent with the Town.

with the Town responding as a Level A provider (representing a higher level of service).


Moderate – Notwithstanding the consistency of the Town’s operating costs and firefighter complement with the comparative municipalities, the current service level standards of the Town – specifically the use of off-duty full time firefighters to


20

municipalities, the current service level standards of the Town specifically the use of off duty full time firefighters to respond to general calls and the classification of the Town as a Level A responder for medical assist – could be adjusted to provide for cost savings, recognizing the associated reduction in service levels and potential for labour relations implications.

Service Level BaselinesPolice

Services Provided

• Uniform patrol• Criminal investigations and intelligence• Marine patrol• Bicycle and snowmobile patrol

C i i l b k d h k

Delivery Model

• Police services are delivered through own resources, including uniformed officers, special constables, auxiliary officers and civilian personnel.

• Specialized police services are provided by the Ontario • Criminal background checks• Dispatch• Court security and prisoner transportation• Information technology

p p p yProvincial Police (OPP).


• The Police Services Act and related regulations set the

Indicators

• Policing costs for the Town on a per household basis• The Police Services Act and related regulations set the standard for police services. Under the Act, policeservices are required to be ‘adequate and effective’ and provide the following core services, either directly or through agreements with other forces:• Crime prevention• Law enforcement, including the capacity to respond

to calls for service 24 hours a day and maintain a

• Policing costs for the Town on a per household basis are 107% of the average of the comparator municipalities, all of which have some form of OPP participation in policing. The number of police officers per 100,000 residents is also higher for the Town than the average of the comparator communities.

• Information provided by the OPP indicates that on average policing costs for communities withto calls for service 24-hours a day and maintain a

communications centre, criminal intelligence capacity, crime analysis, call analysis and public disorder capacity and investigative supports.

• Assistance to victims of crime• Public order maintenance, including a public order

unit• Emergency response including a tactical unit

average, policing costs for communities with populations in the range of 15,000 to 50,000 residents are more than $100 per household less if the community is policed by the OPP. We note, however, that this differential can be attributed to both economies of scale as well as differences in service levels between OPP and municipal police forces.

Emergency response, including a tactical unit, hostage rescue team, major incident commanders, crisis negotiators, police explosive forced entry technicians and explosive disposal technicians


Moderate– Minimum adequacy standards for policing are prescribed by the Police Services Act, which limits the ability to


21

Moderate Minimum adequacy standards for policing are prescribed by the Police Services Act, which limits the ability to achieve significant cost savings through service level reductions. However, the potential does exist for enhanced economies of scale, particularly through collaboration with neighbouring municipalities.

Service Level BaselinesParks and Recreation

Services Provided

• North Simcoe Sports and Recreation Centre (NSSRC)• Outdoor recreation facilities, including sports fields and

playgrounds• Walking trails

H b

Delivery Model

• Parks and recreation services are provided primarily through Town resources (full and part-time employees, including students). In certain instances, services may be contracted out (e.g. lighting repair) or involve

• Harbour• Financial support to community groups• Recreational programming• Tourism

( g g g p )community groups (e.g. special events).


• For the most part parks and recreation services are

Indicators

• The analysis of Financial Information Returns indicates• For the most part, parks and recreation services are discretionary in nature and as such, formal service level standards do not exist.

• In comparison to the comparator municipalities, the Town maintains more indoor and outdoor recreation space on a per capita basis (131% and 141% of the average of the comparator municipalities, respectively), as well as more open park space (119% of the average

• The analysis of Financial Information Returns indicates that the Town’s parks and recreation operating costs and staffing levels are higher than the comparator municipalities:

• Parks and recreation costs on a per household basis (net of non-taxation revenues) are 123% of the average of the comparator municipalities.

• Full time staffing levels for the Town are 128% ofas well as more open park space (119% of the average of the comparator municipalities).

• Full-time staffing levels for the Town are 128% of the average of the comparator municipalities.

• We attribute the differential in parks and recreation operating costs and staffing levels to differences in service levels, including the number and type of facilities operating by the Town and the maintenance standards adopted by the Town.


High – The differential in staffing levels and operating costs indicates the potential for strategies to bring the Town’s parks and recreation costs in line with its comparator communities. Achieving these savings will likely require a reduction in service levels, which will likely be manifested through the appearance and overall condition of the Town’s parks and recreation facilities and potentially operating hours as well.


22

p y p g

Service Level BaselinesLibrary

Services Provided

• Library collection, including electronic materials and periodicals

• Adult, young adult, children and outreach programming• Internet access

M i

Delivery Model

• Library services are primarily delivered through the Town’s own resources, including full-time, part-time and student employees.

• Meeting rooms• Reference services• Internet site


• The Town’s library currently operates a total of 59

Indicators

• The Town’s operating cost per hour of operation• The Town s library currently operates a total of 59 hours per week, which is higher than Wasaga Beach (46 hours) but lower than Collingwood and Port Hope (64 hours and 65 hours, respectively).

• The Town s operating cost per hour of operation approximates the average of the comparator municipalities (100.7%).

• The Town’s staffing for library services (11.49 FTE) is lower than Collingwood (19.09 FTE) and WasagaBeach (15.03 FTE), but higher than Port Hope (8.97)


Low – Based on the total weekly operating hours, service levels for the Town’s library do not appear to be excessive when compared to the comparator municipalities. Similarly, operating costs per hour and FTE staffing are comparable to or lower than the indicators for the comparator municipalities.


23

Service Level BaselinesRoads

Services Provided

• Winter roads maintenance (snowplowing, salting, sanding, snow removal)

• Summer roads maintenance (spring sand cleanup, patching, boulevard maintenance, sweeping, loosetop

Delivery Model

• The Town relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for roads maintenance, with some external contractors utilized for line painting, asphalt patching, ditch and culvert

maintenance)• Sidewalk and curb maintenance (winter and summer)• Leaf removal• Maintenance of traffic signs and signals• Storm sewer and catchbasin maintenance

maintenance and sidewalk repairs.

S i L l St d d Fi i l P f d St ffiService Level Standard

• The primary service level standard for roads maintenance (summer and winter) is Ontario Regulation 239/02 – Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways. Under the regulation, roads are classified into one of six classes depending on speed limit and traffic volumes with different

Financial Performance and Staffing

• The Town’s operating cost per lane kilometre of paved road are 124% of the average of the municipal comparators, although winter road costs were 86% of the average of the comparator municipalities.

• Public works staffing (all functions, including water and wastewater) are 137% of the average for thespeed limit and traffic volumes, with different

maintenance standards established for each class of road. Roads with lower speed limits and/or lower traffic volumes have lower maintenance standards.

• The current service levels provided by the Town for winter and summer maintenance exceed the minimum requirements under Ontario Regulation 239/02, particularly given the nature of the Town’s road

wastewater) are 137% of the average for the comparator municipalities.

p y gnetwork which is not characterized as high speed or high volume.


High – The Town’s current service levels significantly exceed the minimum service level standard, potentially supporting reductions in service levels and associated costs recognizing the potential for adverse response by residents


24

reductions in service levels and associated costs, recognizing the potential for adverse response by residents.

Service Level BaselinesWater and Wastewater

Services Provided

• Water treatment and distribution• Wastewater collection and treatment• Infrastructure maintenance• Biosolids management

Delivery Model

• The Town relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for water and wastewater services, with limited use of outside contractors for specific functions (biosolids haulage,

• Service locates• Fire hydrant maintenance• Special programs (water efficiency stewardship, lead

sampling, private well abandonment)

sampling and testing).


• Water and wastewater services are delivered pursuant to a number of Provincial acts, with limited discretion as to service levels or outcomes.


• The Town’s water treatment and distribution costs per megalitre of treated water, are 91% of the average of the comparator municipalities.

• The Town’s wastewater collection and treatment costs per megalitre of treated water, are 99% of the average of the comparator municipalities.of the comparator municipalities.

• Public works staffing (all functions, including water and wastewater) are 137% of the average for the comparator municipalities.


Moderate – The mandated nature of water and wastewater services provides the Town with minimal opportunity to change service levels as a means of reducing costs. Similarly, the Town’s lower than average water and wastewater costs could be indicative of limited opportunities to realize additional cost reductions. However, the higher than average number of publicworks employees may provide an opportunity to reduce staffing levels.


25

Service Level BaselinesOther Public Works

Services Provided

• Vehicle repairs and maintenance• Public works depot• Information technology• Financial analysis and data entry

Delivery Model

• The Town relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for other public works and building controls.

• Bus shelter maintenance• Streetlights• Building permits


• We understand that formal service level standards have not been established for other public works functions, with these services provided on an ‘as needed’ basis

• Service level standards for building permits are mandated by the Building Code Act, which stipulates


• Not applicable

mandated by the Building Code Act, which stipulates minimum performance standards for building permits.


Low – The relatively small size of these functions (in terms of staffing and budget) reduce the potential for significant cost red ction opport nities In addition the reg lated nat re of b ilding control acti ities likel precl des a significant change toreduction opportunities. In addition, the regulated nature of building control activities likely precludes a significant change to the Town’s internal processes and/or service levels.


26


Ch t IVChapter IVStaffing Analysis

Staffing AnalysisOverview of Staffing Changes

Currently, the Town employs a total of 153 individuals on a full-time basis, with the number of full-time employees remaining constant since 2010. Over the same period (2010 to 2012), the number of part-time employee positions has decreased by two.

Full-time employees 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Net Change

Full-time and part-time staffing levels by department – 2008 to 20121

Administration 17 17 17 17 17 ‒

Planning and development 3 3 3 3 3 ‒

Fire 14 17 17 17 17 +3

Police 36 36 37 37 37 +1

Parks and recreatio8n 20 25 23 23 23 +3

Library 7 6 6 6 6 -1

Public works 29 29 28 28 28 -1

Water and wastewater 21 22 22 22 22 +1

Total 147 155 153 153 153 +6

As noted above, the Town experienced a significant increase in full-time staffing levels from 2008 to 2009, with a correspondingincrease in part-time employees. The majority of this change was due to the transition of seven parks and recreation positions from part-time to full-time, resulting in the overall elimination of 15 part-time parks and recreation positions. Since 2008, a number of other

Part-time employees3 83 65 68 67 66 -17

changes to the Town’s full-time staffing complement have occurred, which we have summarized on the following page.


28

1 Based on personnel information provided by management. Information for part-time employees represents positions only and does not equate to full-time equivalents.


Changes to full-time staffing complement 1

Dept 2009 2010 2011 2012

Elimination of traffic bylaw enforcement officer Admin -1

Finance department intern Admin +1

Additional fire suppression staff Fire +2

Addition of training officer Fire +1

Replacement of library cleaning staff with contractor Library -1

Conversion of part-time staff to full-time ParksNSSRC

+7

Elimination of team leader NSSRC -1

Transfer of Boys and Girls Club staff Parks -1

Reduction in facility lead hands NSSRC -2

Retired public works lead hand not replaced PW -1

Addition of administrative assistant Water +1

Since 2010 the Town has not increased its full-time or part-time staffing complement Rather we were advised that Town

Addition of administrative assistant Water +1

Total +8 -3 ‒ ‒

Change in part-time staff All -18 +3 -2 -1

Since 2010, the Town has not increased its full time or part time staffing complement. Rather, we were advised that Town management has effectively implemented a hiring freeze, with no new net positions created and the only hiring undertaken in connection with staff vacancies. While this has maintained full-time staffing at 2010 levels, the Town does not appear to haveexperienced staff decreases as a result of attrition, which may not have been possible given the nature of the individuals that have retired or otherwise left the Town’s employment during this period.


29

1 Based on personnel information provided by management.


While reductions in full-time staffing through attrition does not appear to have taken place since 2010, the potential does exist for future staffing reductions through attrition over the short to mid-term future. Specifically, we note that 26 full-time employees will be eligible for unreduced pensions by 2016, representing 22% of all full-time employees.

Cumulative number of employees reaching unreduced pension1

20

25

30

5

10

15

While certain of these positions will need to be replaced, the retirement profile provides the Town with the opportunity to reduce staffing levels through attrition, thereby avoiding the resultant issues associated with staff layoffs and retirement incentives.

During the course of the management study we have identified positions that could potentially be eliminated through attrition

-2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

During the course of the management study, we have identified positions that could potentially be eliminated through attrition. However, we believe this analysis includes personal matters about an identifiable individual and/or may impact on the Town’s labour relations and/or employee negotiations and as such, will be presented under separate cover to a closed session of Council.


30

1 Based on personnel information provided by management.

Staffing AnalysisCompensation Levels

The average compensation for full-time Town employees is approximately $58,000 for non-management employees and $82,000 for management employees. Average compensation will vary by department, with compensation costs influenced by the requirements of the specific position and the relative size of the departments.

Average compensation for full-time employees by department (2012)1

Public works

Water and wastewater

Average

Parks and recreation

Planning

Non-ManagementManagement

Administration

Fire

Library Management

During the course of the management study, we have undertaken a comparison of compensation levels for the Town’s non-union employees to an expanded group of comparator municipalities and based on this analysis, have identified potential compensation adjustments that could be considered by the Town. However, we believe this analysis includes personal matters about an identifiable individual and/or may impact on the Town’s labour relations and/or employee negotiations and as such, will be provided under

$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000


31

separate cover to a closed session of Council.

1 KPMG analysis based on 2012 budgeted expenditures and personnel information provided by management.


Ch t VChapter VCouncil Structure

Council StructureComparisons of Council Compositions and Costs

The Town currently has a nine member Council comprised of the mayor, deputy mayor (both elected at large) and seven councillors,with three councillors representing Ward 1, three councillors representing Ward 2 and one councillor representing Ward 3 and 4.

In relation to the comparator municipalities, the Town’s Council provides a higher level of representation that any of the comparator municipalities, with the ratio of councillors to residents and councillors to households higher than the comparators. We note that the use of wards vs. at large representation is evenly divided among the group.

Midland Collingwood Wasaga Beach Port Hope

Council size 9 9 7 7

Ward system Yes No No Yes

Council composition for selected municipalities1

Number of wards 4 n.a. n.a. 2

At-large councillors 2 9 7 1

Councillors per ward (excluding at-large councillors) 1.75 n.a. n.a. 3

Councillors per thousand residents 0.54 0.48 0.40 0.43

Councillors per thousand households 1 18 0 90 0 58 1 03Councillors per thousand households 1.18 0.90 0.58 1.03

Councillors per square kilometre 0.25 0.27 0.12 0.03

Residents per ward 4,143 n.a. n.a. 8,107

Households per ward 1,901 n.a. n.a. 3,375

Square kilometres per ward 8.8 n.a. n.a. 139.5

In the event that the Town reduced its Council size from nine to seven members, we note that the ratio of councillors to residents and households would be consistent with the comparator municipalities, indicating a comparable level of political representation with a smaller Council size.

• Councillors per thousand residents (seven councillors) – 0.42

• Councillors per thousand households (seven councillors) – 0.92


33

1 KPMG analysis based on information obtained from the selected municipalities’ websites.

Council StructureComparisons of Council Compositions and Costs

The Town has established a remuneration mechanism for councillors that includes a combination of monetary compensation (i.e. salary) and benefits coverage. The use of a combination of salaries and benefits is used by other comparable municipalities as well and as such, appears to represent best/common practice for Council remuneration.

While Council remuneration will fluctuate based on benefits coverage, attendance and other factors, we note that compensation levels for the Town’s mayor is consistent with the comparator municipalities, while compensation for the deputy mayor and councillors, is higher than the average of the comparator municipalities.

Council remuneration for selected municipalities1

$45 000

$50,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$10 000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$-

$5,000

$10,000

Mayor Deputy mayor Councillor

Midland Colling ood Wasaga Beach Port Hope Comparator A erage


34

1 KPMG analysis based on information provided by the comparator municipalities and/or obtained from the selected municipalities’ websites.

Midland Collingwood Wasaga Beach Port Hope Comparator Average


Ch t VIChapter VIOpportunities for Consideration

Opportunities for ConsiderationPresenting the Results

Overall, the management study identified 38 potential opportunities for cost reductions that are provided to the Town for consideration, with an estimated annual financial impact of $793,000 (recognizing that financial impacts have not been estimated for all opportunities and that not all opportunities can be implemented in 2013). The following pages provide information concerning the opportunities including:

• A description of the potential opportunity

• An indication as to the potential financial impact associated with the opportunity, based on the 2012 budget and other information

• Potential risks

The decision to implement any of the opportunities identified in the management study will be taken during the 2013 budget process and as such, no formal decision has been made as to the implementation of the identified options.

In addition to the opportunities presented in this report, additional options were identified with respect to the number, compensation pp p p , p p , pand utilization of Town personnel, which are provided under separate cover. Overall, a total of 20 personnel-related opportunities were identified, with estimated associated cost savings of $956,000 (to be realized over a five year period).

Suggestions for cost reductions and increased non-taxation revenue (17) were provided by Midland residents and members of Council and these have been listed on page 44. In certain instances, these suggestions are consistent with the options identified during the course of the management study.


36

Opportunities for ConsiderationMunicipal Council

Option Description Financial Impact1 Risks

Labour Relations Other

A.1 Reduce Council size by two members $51,000 No Yes2

A 2 R d C il i f i i $33 000 N Y 3A.2 Reduce Council remuneration to average of peer communities $33,000 No Yes3

A.3 Reduce number of council committees (currently 35) n.a. No No

A.4 Realign Council remuneration to eliminate full-time benefits n.a. No Yes3

1 Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures discussions with management and other assumptions Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process


37

Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one-time costs.2 Potential that residents may view reduction in Council size as adversely impacting political representation.3 Potential that reduced or realigned Council remuneration may limit candidates for elected office.

Opportunities for ConsiderationParks and Recreation



$ 2B.1 Increase non-taxation funding for the NSSRC to more equitably share operating and capital costs based on usage and residency through:• Non-resident user fee; or• General increase in user fees; or• Contribution from other municipalities.Consideration could be given to a gradual phase-in of increases (assumed 5% increase per year).

$37,000 No Yes2

B.2 Fully fund harbour operations through user fees $21,000 No Yes2

B.3 Increase cost recovery through user fees for ice rentals during summer months (July and August)

tbd No Yes2

B.4 Decrease service maintenance standard for parks and outdoor facilities (15% assumed savings)

$174,000 Yes No

1 Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one time costs


38

Does not included implementation or other one-time costs.2 Potential concerns over affordability, reduced demand in response to fee increases and inter-municipal relations.

Opportunities for ConsiderationPublic Works



C.1 Develop a tiered service standard for winter roads maintenance (15% assumed savings)

$147,000 Yes Yes2

assumed savings)

C.2 Develop a tiered service standard for summer roads maintenance (15% assumed savings)

$108,000 Yes Yes2

C.3 Implement GPS route guidance and spreader control system for winter roads maintenance

tbd No No

C.4 Discontinue all leaf removal activities after upload of service to Simcoe $137,000 No Yes2C.4 Discontinue all leaf removal activities after upload of service to Simcoe County

$137,000 No Yes

C.5 Consider contracting out spring sand cleanup tbd Yes Yes2

C.6 Consider contracting out loose-top maintenance tbd Yes Yes2

C.7 Integrate materials maintenance management and financial reporting systems to eliminate duplicate data entry and improve financial

n.a. No Noy p y p

reporting and budgeting monitoring

C.8 Consider tendering current contract for sludge haulage and disposal, including potential for shared service arrangement with another municipality.

tbd No No

C.9 Consider shared public works functions with neighbouringmunicipalities including winter roads patrol water and wastewater

tbd No Nomunicipalities, including winter roads patrol, water and wastewater maintenance activities and public works planning.


39

1 Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one-time costs.2 Potential concerns over public safety and other risks arising from reduced level of service.

Opportunities for ConsiderationFire Services



D.1 Reduce number of free false alarms from three to one $10,000 No Yes3

D 2 I f f f l fi l ( id i l i l ) bd N Y 3D.2 Increase fee for false fire alarms (non-residential properties only) tbd No Yes3

D.3 Consider sharing of fire service functions (training, inspections) with neighbouring communities

tbd tbd tbd

D.4 Increase utilization of fire services personnel to provide training to municipal staff

$15,000 No No

1 Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not include implementation or other one time costs


40

Does not include implementation or other one-time costs.2 Potential concern surrounding impact on quality of response.3 Potential risk that fires will be unreported due to concerns over cost.

Opportunities for ConsiderationPolice Services



E.1 Integrate municipal and police fleets tbd No No

E 2 I i h d li i f i i h h i i l i bd N NE.2 Investigate shared policing functions with other municipal services tbd No No

1 Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one-time costs.


41

of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one time costs.

Opportunities for ConsiderationCorporate Services



G.1 Reduce frequency of water billings to bi-monthly n.a. No No

G 2 C lid d ili billi N NG.2 Consolidate water and utility billings n.a. No No

G.3 Consider use of external service provider for management of short-term disability benefits

tbd No No

G.4 Investigate potential shared corporate services with other municipalities, including payroll, information technology, purchasing, clerks

tbd Yes No

G.5 Actively register properties that are eligible for tax sales tbd No No

G.6 Undertake group purchasing arrangements with other public sector organizations for professional services (audit, legal, human resources, planning, consulting), materials and supplies (office supplies, utilities, telecommunications), capital (vehicles, information technology)

tbd No No

G.7 Ensure timely completion of audited financial statements and financial statement returns, avoiding holdback of OMPF funding

n.a. No No

G.8 Eliminate manual finance processes and use of Excel spreadsheets for information maintenance and financial analysis.

tbd No No


42

1 Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one-time costs.

Opportunities for ConsiderationOther Services



I.1 Acquire alternative fuel vehicles for municipal fleet, including transit TBD No No

$ $ $I.2 Increase metered parking rates from $0.75 to $1.00 $37,000 No No

I.3 Implement regular increases in fines and parking pass fees $5,000 No No

I.4 Establish pay and display parking systems for municipal lots tbd No No

I.5 Establish a regional land use planning and building control function with other municipalities

tbd Yes No

I.6 Transition the Huronia Airport to a full cost recovery structure (assume three year phase-in)

$18,000 No Yes2

I.7 Reduce free parking period (currently three hours) tbd No Yes3

1 Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one-time costs.2 Potential risk associated with inter-municipal relations and financial viability of airport operations


43

Opportunities for ConsiderationOpportunities Identified by Community Members

Option Description

J.1 Establish economic development capacity, including potential for regional economic development function in conjunction with other municipalitiesp

J.2 Advance concept of joint urban node through increased collaboration with neighbouring communities

J.3 Introduce shared services with neighbouring communities, including shared chief building officer, shared fire chief

J.4 Reducing staffing costs through hiring freeze, attrition and re-allocation of resources to meet the needs of municipal operations

J 5 Investigate reduced maintenance standards for public works and parks and recreationJ.5 Investigate reduced maintenance standards for public works and parks and recreation

J.6 Undertake financial audits of major capital projects to identify potential improvements to project management processes

J.7 Assess current equipment needs based on the Town’s operations and consider changes to future procurement (e.g. acquire different type of vehicle or rent in the short term)

J.8 Review current rental rate structure based on value of land occupied by third parties so as to ensure an appropriate return on the Town’s yassets

J.9 Introduce zero based budgeting and require cost savings to be contributed to reserves rather than redirected to other projects.

J.10 Change the deployment model for fire services and increase reliance on volunteer firefighters.

J.11 Investigate shared fire services with neighbouring communities.

J 12 Establish a parks master plan and sell excess parkland and/or apply levies in lieu of parklandsJ.12 Establish a parks master plan and sell excess parkland and/or apply levies in lieu of parklands.

J.13 Increase user fees for the NSSRC, offset by directed subsidies for low income residents.

J.14 Reassess the requirement for a new public works depot and consider integrating public works with other municipal departments or other municipalities.

J.15 Reduce library operating costs by utilizing an increased number of volunteers.


44

J.16 Renegotiate contributions from other municipalities for library services.

J.17 Investigate shared policing services with neighbouring communities in order to achieve efficiencies and economies of scale.


Ch t VIIChapter VIIFinancial Projectionsj

Financial ProjectionsCouncil Direction With Respect to Cost Reductions

Following the completion of the 2012 budget process, Council expressed its intention to consider three scenarios as part of the 2013 budget process:

• 2% taxation increase

• 0% taxation increase

• 2% taxation decrease

Based on these targets for 2013 taxation increases, and considering potential adjustments to the 2012 budget for inflation, changes in non-taxation revenues and other items, we have estimated that the amount of cost savings and/or incremental non-taxation revenuethat are required for 2013 is in the range of $343,000 to $1,033,000. This level of cost savings/incremental non-taxation revenue assumes that contributions to reserves and debt servicing costs are consistent with the prior year (i.e. frozen) and that no enhancements in Town services are introduced.

(in thousands) 2% Taxation Increase

0% Taxation Increase

2% Taxation Decrease

Total municipal levy (2012) $17,251 $17,251 $17,251

Targeted change in municipal levy $345 ‒ ($345)

Summary of required cost reductions and incremental non-taxation revenue required to achieve Council’s budgetary direction

g g p y ( )

Targeted municipal levy $17,596 $17,251 $16,906

Projected municipal levy before cost reduction strategies $17,939 $17,939 $17,939

Required level of cost reductions and non-taxation revenue $343 $688 $1,033

As a percentage of projected operating costs 1.2% 2.4% 3.6%

Included as Appendix C, Schedule C.1 is a financial projection of the Town’s financial results and taxation levels that considers inflationary adjustments (including salary increases pursuant to collective bargaining agreements) but excludes increases in reserve contributions (capital funding), debt servicing costs or strategies for cost reductions or incremental non-taxation revenues. As noted in the projection, the Town’s overall municipal levy is projected to increase from $17.251 million in 2012 to $20.515 million in 2017, an average increase of 3.6% per year. Under this scenario, the average residential tax per household (lower tier only) is projected to increase from $1,913.53 in 2012 to $2,275.58 in 2017.


46

increase from $1,913.53 in 2012 to $2,275.58 in 2017.

Financial ProjectionsCongruence with Council Direction

As part of the management study, Council was requested to provide their initial thoughts on certain of the opportunities for cost reductions or increased non-taxation revenue. As noted below, those opportunities with initial support from Council (recognizing that all opportunities will be subject to formal approval as part of the Town’s budget process) are estimated to reduce the municipal levy by $560,000 during 2013, with an additional $140,000 in levy reduction expected in 2014. Preliminary modeling indicates that this level of levy reduction, after consideration of inflation and other factors, would result in a net levy increase of 0.5% for 2013 (refer to Appendix C Schedule C 2)Appendix C, Schedule C.2)

Opportunity Assumed Implementation

Date

EstimatedFinancial Impact

2013

EstimatedFinancial Impact

2014

Council Supportfor Opportunity

Reduce Council size by two members Dec 1 2014 ‒ $51,000 56%

Summary of initial Council survey results

Reduce Council size by two members Dec 1, 2014

Freeze Council remuneration Jan 1, 2013 $8,000 ‒ 67%

Increase non-taxation revenue for NSSRC Jul 1, 2013 $19,000 $37,000 78%

Full fund harbour operations through user fees Jan 1, 2013 $21,000 $21,000 67%

Increase cost recovery through user fees for ice rentals during summer months Jun 1, 2013 $5,000 $5,000 100%

Decrease service maintenance standards for parks and outdoor facilities Jan 1 2013 $174,000 $174,000 56%Decrease service maintenance standards for parks and outdoor facilities Jan 1, 2013

Develop a tiered service maintenance standard for winter roads maintenance Nov 1, 2013 $74,000 $147,000 67%

Develop a tiered service maintenance standard for summer roads maintenance Jan 1, 2013 $108,000 $108,000 67%

Discontinue leaf removal activities after upload of service to Simcoe County Jan 1, 2013 $137,000 $137,000 67%

Reduce number of free false alarms from three to one Apr 1, 2013 $7,000 $10,000 100%

Increase fee for false alarms from non residential properties Apr 1 2013 $7,000 $10,000 100%

In addition, we have estimated that a total of $323,000 of personnel-related opportunities could potentially be realized by the Town during 2013, potentially increasing the 2013 level of cost reductions and incremental non-taxation revenue to $883,000. This level of municipal levy reduction would result in a 1.7% decrease in the Town’s municipal levy for 2013, which approximates the upper end of the tax scenarios outlined by Council.

Increase fee for false alarms from non-residential properties Apr 1, 2013 $ , $ ,

Total $560,000 $700,000


47


Ch t VIIIChapter VIIIConcluding Comments

Town of Midland Management StudyConcluding Comments

In today’s municipal environment, councillors are faced with the competing objectives of attempting to minimize taxation increases while ensuring sufficient funds are available to maintain support existing operations and finance residents’ demands for enhanced services. The experience of the Town of Midland, which combines Council’s intention to reduce costs and a meaningful level of community interest, is in no means unique.

The overall intention of the management study was to identify potential opportunities for cost reductions and incremental non-taxation revenues that would ensure the long-term sustainability of the Town, provide an acceptable level of service to residents and reduce taxation increases after a period of significant increases. We trust that the opportunities identified in the report are of use to Council and staff during the 2013 budget process as well as budget processes for subsequent years. We believe, however, that if Council is to be truly successful in managing future taxation increases, certain key principles need to be adhered to:

• While efficiencies exist, meaningful cost savings will often require service level reductions. In the case of Midland, the analysis indicates that service levels are often higher than comparator communities, providing the opportunity to reduce costs while delivering a level of services that is consistent with other municipalitiesdelivering a level of services that is consistent with other municipalities.

• The implementation of the management study opportunities is a multi-year process that will require consistency on the part of Council. This requires Council to maintain and defend its decision to implement opportunities that may impact on service levels.

• By virtue of its proximity to neighbouring communities, a number of significant opportunities are available for shared service arrangements with other municipalities. In developing these opportunities, we suggest that the Town start small and ensure thatsharing is a two-way street, with the Town both providing services to and purchasing services from other communities.

• At some point, Council will be faced with the prospect of reducing services to a point that is less than acceptable. Where coreservices are to be maintained, Council should ensure that sufficient funding is provided to support the operations at the required level.

KPMG would like to express our appreciation to members of Council, management and staff of the Town of Midland, community members and other individuals who assisted with and participated in the management study.


49

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thoroughinformation without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.


The KPMG name logo and “cutting through complexity” are registeredThe KPMG name, logo and cutting through complexity are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

APPENDIX A

Clerks Department

Town of Midland - Management StudyClerks Department - Municipal Service Matrix

Required Expected DiscretionaryThe service and brief description

How is it provided? Own resources?Contracted outShared service, etc.

Mandated by legislation or necessary for public safety

Typically delivered by similar sized

municipalities and expected by residents

No basis for delivery other

than community

choice

live person answers call

receptionistx

commissioning staff provide at the counter on as requested basis

x x

marriage licenses receptionist xmarriage ceremonies designated staff

x

crossing guard hired staff person to do x

Three hour free parking in municipal lots

traffic officer to monitor and ticket as required x

Staff attendance on various committees

own resourcesx x

death registration own resources xlottery licences own resources xpreparation of agendas, minutes, reports and by-laws for Council (Gen comm, Special Council, Closed meetings etc)

own resources

x

handles town wide insurance and claims

own resources with assistance of adjuster x

meet standard approx 400 per year

provide people with a prompt response - and to ensure all municipal property is covered

meet standard approx 15 letters/potential claims per year

provide civil ceremonies to those that request same

meet standard based on availability

approx 30 per year

assist people to obtain lottery provided they meet the eligibility approx provide according to procedural by-law and municipal act

meet standard minimum of 22 meetings per year

Council looks to have staff participate for input/continuity

meet standard provided staff are available

approx 17 staff (not referencing Council/General Committee/P & D meetings)

assist people when coming into

How often do you miss on your service standards? Please provide any statistics you may have

Any internal statistics you have tracking your performance? Please provide statistics relating to the service.

assistance to students prior to school start, lunch and after

meet standard 10 - 20 children per day

approx 3,000 calls a month

provide marriage licence to meet standard - may take longer

prompt and friendly pick up and transfer of calls

Service Model Service Standard Service Standard ExceptionsBasis of Delivery

free (up to 3 hours) parking in downtown to assist business owners

meet standard 534 parking spaces

provide people with the service of commissioning documents when required

meet standard - unless no one is available due to other commitments

Performance Outcomes

meet standard

approx 120 per year

approx 5 a week

What is the level of service you aim to provide?

Required Expected Discretionarycoordinates municipal land sales and purchases

own resources -with assistance from solicitor for transfer and registration purposes

x

Coordinates Records Management for the Town

own resources

x

Responds to public inquiries - calls, emails, in person

own resourcesx

municipal law enforcement

own resourcesx

licence cabs, hawkers and peddlers, refreshment vehicles, dogs, auctioneers, second hand stores and pawn shops

own resources

x

dog control contracted out to third party

x

deliver municipal election process

own resources with staff hired to man the polls x

Admin support for Mayor/Council -

own resourcesx

provide support for preparing correspondence, organizing

meet standard

based on various town by-laws - pro active patrols and complaints

meet standard

based on the related town by-law meet standard

respond to complaints in a timely fashion

meet standard

tabulators at a central voting location

meet standard voter turnout in 2012 -39.5%

respond to all issues brought forward in a timely way

meet standard

based on Land Sale by-law meet standard

based on our retention by-law which reflects applicable legislation

meets standard in most departments

Performance OutcomesService Model Basis of Delivery Service Standard Service Standard Exceptions

Treasury

Town of Midland - Management StudyTreasury - Municipal Service Matrix







than community

choice

Prepare monthly and quarterly financial statements

Own

X

Prepare annual financial statements

Own

X

Prepare annual FIR. Own

X

Collect Taxes and Other Receivables

OwnX

Pay Bills OwnX

Perform Payroll Function.

Own

X

Ensure all taxes and other receivables are collected in a timely manner.

No exceptions n/a

Ensure all expenses are paid prior to due dates.

No exceptions n/a

Accurate Financial Reporting for Council and Departments to make more informed financial decisions.

Don't normally miss; Departments have real time access to view; Quarterly statements provided to Council at Meetings

n/a

Ensure all employees are paid on time and at the correct amount.

No exceptions n/a

Basis of DeliveryService Model Service Standard Service Standard Exceptions

Accurate Financial Reporting for annual audit purposes to be provided to ratepayers and to Ministry.

Due to PSAB changes, the 2009, 2010 and 2011 financial statements have been significantly delayed, however, will be on course for 2012.

n/a

Accurate Financial Reporting to be provided toMinistry.

Due to PSAB changes, the 2009, 2010 and 2011 FIR have been significantly delayed, however, will be on course for 2012.

n/a





Required Expected DiscretionaryWe provide support for any financial questions departments may have regarding financial performance.

Own

X

We assist departments in determining the financing of capital projects.

Own

X

We coordinate the Town's Budgeting process in conjunction with the various Departments.

Own

X

Ensure Departments have information that they require to make informed decisions.

No exceptions n/a


No exceptions n/a


No exceptions n/a

Performance OutcomesService ModelBasis of Delivery

Service Standard Service Standard Exceptions

Human Resources

Town of Midland - Management StudyHuman Resources - Municipal Service Matrix





municipalities and expected by

residents


than community

choice

Recruitment All aspects of recruitment are done through HR resource.

Yes

Training Combination of HR resource and external vendors

Some is legislative required

yes

Labour Relations Own Resource, however may use legal council for some situations.

Bound by Collective

Agreementsyes

Benefits - Program Management

Both - own service and a consultant.

yes

Disability Management

Own Resource

Bound by Collective

AgreementsYes

Compensation Own Resource

yes

As required when looking to fill new positions or to obtain comparator data for existing staff or through negotiations.

As required

We have requirements to meet as per various collective agreements.

We participate in a County Wide benefit consortium to save costs. We've been successful in reducing benefit cost.

Reductions in benefit costs for 2013 into 2015. We have not increased any benefits in negotiations in 5 years.

We have a self founded and internally adjudicated model. We aim to get staff back as soon as possible or via modified return to work.

Sick time is down across all departments and we successful negotiated new wording in our collective agreements.


If training is legislative, I aim to ensure it is done as bound by legislation. Some examples are Accessibility and Bill 168.

We have not missed any required training as per legislations.

Accessibility Training was carried out for over 200 employees by the January 1, 2010 deadline.

High degree of internal service in order to avoid costly mediations and arbitrations.

We have been successful in negotiating various collective agreements and therefore avoiding a strike or lockout situation.

No strikes or lockouts for many years and a number of grievances have been withdrawn from the union.





Internal service to managers and departments to save costs.

We've been successful in filling all positions through our own recruitment efforts.

In the 4 years since HR has been in place, there has been no use of external agencies to fill opportunities.

Required Expected DiscretionaryHealth & Safety Own Resource Bound by

OHSAyes

Employee Relations Own ResourceLegislative yes

HR has been working to ensure consistency across the

We have been successful in reducing the number of annual

Work in supporting the H&S part-time resource on annual training

We did have a retainer agreement with a 3rd on WSIB

We have been very successful in educating staff and rolling out


Planning and Development

Engineering

Town of Midland - Management StudyEngineering - Municipal Services Matrix







than community

choice

The service and brief description




municipalities and expected b d


than community

choice

Design Capital Infrastructure Projects

Service is provide by both internal staff and outside consultants X

Capital Project Tender Preparation

Service is provided by both internal staff and outside consultants X

Capital Project Administration

Service is provided by internal staff X

Capial Project Inspection

Service is Provided by internal staff X

Customer Service Service is provided by internal staff X

New Development Review

Service is provided by both internal staff and outside consultants

X


Most cost effective service in a narrow construction season window

Due to our tendering policy and length of some projects, we don't have the staff to complete all capital projects in the year they are budgeted.







Many municipalities our size would contract out the preparation of tenders. These are done in house in most cases.

Most cost effective service in a narrow construction season window.

Many municipalities our size would contract out new development review to Consultants. These are done in

Most cost effective service in a narrow construction season window.Most cost effective service in a narrow construction season window.

Required Expected Discretionary

Subdivision Agreement Preparation

Service is provided by internal staff

X

Development Inspection

Service is provided by both internal staff and outside consultants

X

Building Application Review


X

Engineering Dwgs & Records Maintenance


Transit Management - Capital


Engineering Services for other Departments


X

Many municipalities our size would contract out the preparation of Subdivision Agreements. These are done in house.

Many municipalities our size would contract out the inspection of new development to Contractors. These are done in

Many municipalities our size would contract out Engineering Services for other Departments

Service Model Basis of Delivery Service Standard Service Standard Exceptions Performance Outcomes

Fire Services

Town of Midland - Management StudyMunicipal Service Matrix

Required Expected Discretionary

The service and brief

description

How is it provided?

Own resources?

Contracted out

Shared service, etc.

Mandated by

legislation or

necessary for

public safety

Typically

delivered by

similar sized

municipalities

and expected

by residents

No basis for

delivery other

than

community

choice

Public Education/Fire

Prevention

Own Resources X

Smoke Alarm

ProgramFPO + Duty Staff X

Distribute Fire Safety

InformationFPO + Duty Staff + VFF X

Code Compliance

Inspections and

Information

FPO + Duty Crew X

Building Plans Review FPO X

Fire Safety Training FPO+ TO + Duty Staff X

As submittedReview Fire Safety Requirements 37 Plans Reviewed;

Upon request 25 to 30 groups

Attend community events;

school visits; station tours; Public

Service Announcements.

Urgent life safety matters; same

day - Non-urgent matters; as

convenient for owner.

Inspections mainly limited to

request and complaint.

133 Request Inspections + 20

Inservice/Home Inspections + 5

Licensing + 17 Final Occupancy +

15 Complaint; 127 Municipal

Record Searches; 52 Inquiries;


Fire safety information;

inspection; installation.


What is the level of service you

aim to provide?

How often do you miss on your

service standards? Please

provide any statistics you may

have

Any internal statistics you have

tracking your performance?

Please provide statistics relating

to the service.

canselmo

Typewritten Text

canselmo

Typewritten Text

canselmo

Typewritten Text

canselmo

Typewritten Text

canselmo

Typewritten Text

canselmo

Typewritten Text

canselmo

Typewritten Text

canselmo

Typewritten Text

Fire Services

Fire Protection

Services

Own Resources -

Supported by Other Fire

Departments via Mutual

Aid

X

Basic Fire Fighting (No

Rescue)X

Interior Structural Fire

Fighting (w/Rescue)X

Vehicle Fire Fighting X

Grass, Brush, Forestry

Fire FightingX

Marine Fire Fighting -

Shore BasedX

Medical Assistance

(Advanced) and

Defibrillation

X

No service level established by

Council policy. Service delivered

in consideration on OFM

Guidelines and other recognized

best practices





best practices





best practices





best practices





best practices





best practices

Statistics for all emergency

response calls provided in

accompanying document.

Hazardous Materials

Response - Awareness

Level

Operations and

Technician Level

Response via Simcoe

County CBRNE Response

Team - Lead from Barrie

Fire

X

Transportation

Vehicle RescueX

Water and Ice Rescue -

Shored Based and

Water Entry (Vessel

Based not provided)

X

Public Assistance X

Ambulance Assistance X

Police Assistance X





best practices





best practices





best practices

Community Risk Profile indicates

vessel based service should be

considered





best practices





best practices





best practices

Public Utilities

AssistanceX

Urban Search and

Rescue

Provincial HUSAR Team

(Toronto)

High Angle (Rope)

RescueNot Provided

Confined Space

RescueNot Provided

Farm/Silo Rescue Not Provided

Trench Rescue Not Provided

None - Require additional

training and equipment to deliver

this service

Community/Council may

anticipate that this is a service

MFD can provide, Community

Risk Profile indicates this service

should not be considered



this service





should be considered



this service








this service










best practices

None - Provincial HUSAR Team

(Toronto)






Police

Town of Midland - Management StudyPolice - Municipal Service Matrix







than community

choice

Call Response Own Resources

Yes Yes

Specialty Services Shared Service

Yes Yes

Community Service Own Resources

Yes Yes

Court Services Own Resources

Yes





We respond to all calls for service, within limits of working shift, in significant cases we call more resources when needed. Emergency cases we respond to immediately.

Generally we respond to all calls but occasionally we fail to respond timely to minor incidents. Calls for service are almost always responded to within the shift.

We call upon provincial services to provide assistance with homicides, tactical response, K9 etc. Utilized when needed.

Believe we meet all service standards.

We provided education to schools, and community groups, we hold a bike safety rodeo, participate in community events, provide education to victims of property crime.

0


Midland is required to provide security for the court house that services the entire North Simcoe area and pays approximately 350k per year.

0

Required Expected DiscretionaryDispatch Services Own Resources

Yes Yes / No.

Cleaning Services Own Resources

Yes

Record Check Services

Own Resources

Yes

I/T Own ResourcesYes

Yes and no arises from the fact that some provide their own dispatch services and some use a centralized dispatch model and purchase services from another police agency. The service provides dispatch services for Public utilities and Fire.

We have failed to meet dispatch targets for fire on a few occasions.


Provided inhouse by person trained in both court services and I/T.

0

A building that is within health standards and clean in appearance.

0

We generate revenue by providing record check services to a third party vendor and the public.

0

Service Model Basis of Delivery Service Standard Service Standard Exceptions

Parks and Recreation

Town of Midland - Management Study Parks and Recreation DepartmentMunicipal Service Matrix North Simcoe Sports and Recreation Centre







than community

choice

Own resources for all unless otherwise noted

Centennial arena IceX

Centennial arena summer floor X

MMHA arena Ice

X

MMHA arena summer floor X

NSSRC GymnasiumX

Community HallX

Multi Purpose roomX

Bill Thompson room

X


Ice Aug 13 to April 22 2011 - lost 2 weeks of ice rentals in Feb for chiller replacement, 160 lost hours

1,828.25 hours ice, 9 ice hockey tournaments


April 27 to Aug 7 2011 - no exceptions 402.55 hours rented, 6 tournaments for ball hockey and lacrosse and 1 concert




2011

July 7 to April 20 2011 - no exceptions 1,828.85 hours rented, 6 ice hockey tournaments, 375 hours for public, parent & tot & seniorskating

April 26 to July 1 2011 - no exceptions 306 hours rented, 6 tournaments for ball hockey and lacrosse, one trade show

Jan 1 to December 31 2011 - no exceptions 1,486.60 hours rented for indoor sports. 15 tournaments of basketball and badminton

Jan 1 to December 31 2011 - no exceptions 1,200.54 hours rented for banquets, meetings, shuffleboard,trade show etc

Jan 1 to December 31 2011 - no exceptions 2,151.65 hours rented for meetings

Jan 1 to December 31 2011 - no exceptions 1,611.80 hours rented for meetings, fitness classes,parties, etc

Required Expected DiscretionarySeniors room

X

BoardroomX

Seminar RoomX

Sports Store Contracted OutX

Office Rentals Leased to Groups / Businesses

X

Publicity Own ResourcesX

Customer Service Own ResourcesX

Health and Safety Own ResourcesX

Cleaning and Maintenance

Own ResourcesX

Jan 1 to December 31 2011 - no exceptions 2,609.85 hours rented for meets, banquets, fitness classes, parties, etc

Jan 1 to December 31 2011 - no exceptions 1,129.70 hours rented for meetings, other

Jan 1 to December 31 2011 - no exceptions 243.45 hours rented for meetings, other

Jan 1 to December 31 nil


maintain and clean, safe, healthy facility

Floors, washrooms, windows, lights, all general maintenance

Jan 1 to December 31 nil Payments, inquireies, registrations, monitor cameras

meetings, various laws and regulations

nil

Jan 1 to December 31 nil Air Cadets, Sea Cadets, Lift, Rogers TV, No Borders Fitness, Registered Massage Therapist, MMHA, PMBA, Civitan Club, Community Living Huronia, Deaf Access

Jan 1 to December 31 nil LED Sign, website, newspaper ads, bulletin boards


Library

Required Expected DiscretionaryCirculation of materials

own resources no yes Patron satisfaction

Reference Questions, Readers' Advisory and other assistance

own resources, shared data bases, ILL no yes

Patron satisfaction

Programming, Adult

own and brought in - readers or speakers, etc.

no yes

Entertaining and informative presentations that appeal to our community audience

Programming, Young Adult

as above

no yes

Concentrate more on the entertainment aspect - try to engage youth

Programming, Children

as above

no yes

Simple programming to engage the young and acquaint them with the Library

Programming, Outreach

as above

no yes

Taking the service to the audience - classrooms, service clubs, book clubs,

Books on Wheels

own and volunteer no yes Take books to the

houseboundCommunity Centre and Civic Space

own

no yes

Provide a comfortable, low cost and safe environment for community groups to meet and plan as they work toward community enhancemnt

Service Standard Exceptions Performance Outcome

Town of Midland - Management StudyLibrary - Municipal Service Matrix

Basis of DeliveryService Model Service Standard

Required Expected DiscretionaryElectronic Resources

Own resources

no yes

Through careful selection, budgeting and resource sharing with consortia we provide as many resources as we can afford

In house Internet Access

Own resource

no yes

To Provide as many access points as possible to meet demand

Wireless Access County Assistance no yes To make the entire

building a wi-fi zonePublic Tech Support

Own

no

Some might - requires staff and

time

To assist the public with their tech problems - ebook registration, help with online govt forms etc

Friends Group and others who support Library

own

no

Some might - requres staff and

time

Work with Vols. As they raise funds and awareness to enhance services

Collection Maintenance

Own

no yes

To provide a clean, current, useful, educational and entertaining selection of materials to a demanding audience and to maintain it all in as good a condition as possible

Community Partnerships

Own

no yes

To work with other organizations - BIA, C of C, service clubs, to increase awareness and usefulness for the good of all

Service Model Basis of Delivery Service Standard Service Standard Exceptions Performance Outcome

Required Expected DiscretionarySpace Own

no yes

To provide a safe, sufficiently spacious and comfortable environment

Hours Ownno yes

To establish hours that meet patron requirements

Collection Management

Own

no yes

To manage collection in the most efficient and staff effective way

Tourism and general

Own

no yes

To act as ambassadors for the community by providing local info

Web site Own

no yes

To provide a current and informative resource and an access point to all Library services and programs

Service Model Basis of Delivery Service Standard Service Standard Exceptions Performance Outcome

APPENDIX B

CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND

Schedule of Financial and Other Indicators for Comparator Municipalities (note 1)

Midland NotesCollingwood Wasaga Beach Port Hope Average Mid Range Average Mid Range

(1) ADMINISTRATION

Administrative wages per household 208.16$ 200.56$ 129.12$ 241.16$ 190.28$ 200.56$ 109.4% 103.8%Administrative costs as a percentage of total municipal operating costs 7.5% 10.5% 10.3% 11.8% 10.9% 10.5% 69.4% 72.2%

(2) FIRE

Fire costs per household, net of non-taxation revenues 284.53$ 389.06$ 269.14$ 147.92$ 329.10$ 86.5% (note 2)Firefighters (full-time, part-time and volunteer) per 100,000 residents 217 229 200 214 101.5% (note 2)

(3) POLICE

Police costs per household, net of non-taxation revenues 520.27$ 464.66$ 271.91$ 722.86$ 486.48$ 464.66$ 106.9% 112.0%Police officers per 100,000 residents 191 187 137 191 172 187 111.3% 102.1%

(4) ROADS

Operating cost per paved roads per lane kilometre 5,330.55$ 3,782.25$ 4,355.20$ 4,673.33$ 4,270.26$ 4,355.20$ 124.8% 122.4%Winter maintenance cost per lane kilometre maintained 1,870.30$ 3,590.10$ 2,370.59$ 539.53$ 2,166.74$ 2,370.59$ 86.3% 78.9%

(5) WATER AND WASTEWATER

Water treatment and distribution cost per megalitre of water treated 698.37$ 616.77$ 884.96$ 806.42$ 769.38$ 806.42$ 90.8% 86.6%Wastewater treatment and collection cost per megalitre of wastewater treated 603.08$ 458.91$ 614.16$ 751.43$ 608.17$ 614.16$ 99.2% 98.2%

(6) PARKS AND RECREATION

Total kilometres of trails per 1,000 residents 1.04 3.83 0.88 3.64 2.78$ 3.64 37.4% 28.6%Total hectares of open space per 1,000 residents 7.51 5.89 5.06 8.04 6.33$ 5.89 118.8% 127.7%Square metres of indoor recreation space per 1,000 residents 685.72 417.36 605.94 549.88 524.39$ 549.88 130.8% 124.7%Square metres of outdoor recreation space per 1,000 residents 231.97 153.92 176.36 165.14$ 140.5%Parks and recreation costs per household, net of non-taxation revenues 368.87$ 433.70$ 180.17$ 283.62$ 299.16$ 283.62$ 123.3% 130.1%

(7) LIBRARY

Library costs per hour of operation, net of non-taxation revenue 264.89$ 450.27$ 134.87$ 204.26$ 263.14$ 204.26$ 100.7% 129.7%Weekly hours of operation 59.00 64.00 46.00 65.00 58.33 64.00 101.1% 92.2%FTE paid staff 11.49 19.09 15.03 8.97 14.36 15.03 80.0% 76.4%

(8) FULL-TIME PERSONNEL

Administration 17 17 15 19 17 17 100.0% 100.0%Fire 17 28 15 2 22 79.1% (note 2)Police 37 - - 37 (note 3)Transit 2 - - - (note 4)Public works 48 26 39 40 35 39 137.1% 123.1%Parks and recreation 23 23 15 16 18 16 127.8% 143.8%Libraries 6 15 2 2 6 94.7%Planning 3 8 7 6 7 7 42.9% 42.9%Other - 24 11 - 12 11 0.0% 0.0%

153 141 104 122

Notes:

(1) KPMG analysis based on 2010 Municipal Financial Information Returns and other documentation.(2) With the exception of Port Hope, all of the comparator municipalities have composite fire services. The calculation of average data for fire services excludes Port Hope and no mid-range information has been provided.(3) Collingwood and Wasaga Beach utilitize OPP, while Port Hope uses a combination of OPP and municipal policing.(4) Transit services are contracted out by the comparator municipalities.

------------------------------- Comparator Municipalities ------------------------------- Midland as a Percentage of

APPENDIX C

CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND Schedule C.1

Schedule of Projected Financial Results and Municipal TaxationAssuming No Strategies for Cost Reductions or Incremental Non-Taxation RevenueFor the Years Ending December 31

Budget2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(1) Wages and benefits 15,715$ 16,171 16,640 17,073 17,517 17,972

(2) Other operating costs 7,135 7,313 7,496 7,683 7,875 8,072

(2) Contributions to reserves and reserve funds 3,118 3,118 3,118 3,118 3,118 3,118

(3) Debt servicing costs 1,690 1,690 1,690 1,690 1,690 1,690

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS 27,658 28,292 28,944 29,564 30,200 30,852

Non-taxation revenues (10,407) (10,389) (10,337) (10,337) (10,337) (10,337)

MUNICIPAL LEVY 17,251 17,903 18,607 19,227 19,863 20,515

Municipal levy by property class:Residential and farm properties 12,061 12,517 13,009 13,443 13,887 14,343 Multi-residential 785 815 847 875 904 934 Commercial 3,478 3,609 3,751 3,876 4,005 4,136 Industrial 734 762 792 818 845 873 Other property classes (pipelines, farmlands and managed forests) 50 52 54 56 58 59 Payment-in-lieu 143 148 154 159 164 170

MUNICIPAL LEVY 17,251$ 17,903 18,607 19,227 19,863 20,515

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN MUNICIPAL LEVY 3.8% 3.9% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3%

AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL TAX PER HOUSEHOLD 1,913.53$ 1,985.88 2,063.94 2,132.79 2,203.24 2,275.58

-------------------------------------------- Projected --------------------------------------------

CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND Schedule C.2

Schedule of Projected Financial Results and Municipal TaxationIncluding Strategies for Cost Reductions or Incremental Non-Taxation Revenue with Initial Council SupportFor the Years Ending December 31

Level of Assumed BudgetCouncil Support Effective Date 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(1) Wages and benefits 15,715$ 16,171 16,640 17,073 17,517 17,972

(2) Other operating costs 7,135 7,313 7,496 7,683 7,875 8,072

(2) Contributions to reserves and reserve funds 3,118 3,118 3,118 3,118 3,118 3,118

(3) Debt servicing costs 1,690 1,690 1,690 1,690 1,690 1,690

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS 27,658 28,292 28,944 29,564 30,200 30,852

Non-taxation revenues (10,407) (10,389) (10,337) (10,337) (10,337) (10,337)

MUNICIPAL LEVY BEFORE UNDERNOTED ITEMS 17,251 17,903 18,607 19,227 19,863 20,515

Reduce Council size by two members 56% Dec 1, 2014 - - (51) (51) (51) (51) Freeze Council remuneration 67% Jan 1, 2013 - (8) - - - - Increase non-taxation revenue for NSSRC 78% Jul 1, 2013 - (19) (37) (37) (37) (37) Full fund harbour operations through user fees 67% Jan 1, 2013 - (21) (21) (21) (21) (21) Increase cost recovery through user fees for ice rentals during summer months 100% Jun 1, 2013 - (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) Decrease service maintenance standards for parks and outdoor facilities 56% Jan 1, 2013 - (174) (174) (174) (174) (174) Develop a tiered service maintenance standard for winter roads maintenance 67% Nov 1, 2013 - (74) (147) (147) (147) (147) Develop a tiered service maintenance standard for summer roads maintenance 67% Jan 1, 2013 - (108) (108) (108) (108) (108) Discontinue leaf removal activities after upload of service to Simcoe County 67% Jan 1, 2013 - (137) (137) (137) (137) (137) Reduce number of free false alarms from three to one 100% Apr 1, 2013 - (7) (10) (10) (10) (10) Increase fee for false alarms from non-residential properties 100% Apr 1, 2013 - (7) (10) (10) (10) (10)

- (560) (700) (700) (700) (700)

PROJECTED MUNICIPAL LEVY 17,251$ 17,343 17,907 18,527 19,163 19,815

Municipal levy by property class:Residential and farm properties 12,061 12,125 12,520 12,953 13,398 13,854 Multi-residential 785 789 815 843 872 902 Commercial 3,478 3,497 3,610 3,735 3,863 3,995 Industrial 734 738 762 788 815 843 Other property classes (pipelines, farmlands and managed forests) 50 50 52 54 56 57 Payment-in-lieu 143 144 148 154 159 164

MUNICIPAL LEVY 17,251$ 17,343 17,907 18,527 19,163 19,815

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN MUNICIPAL LEVY 0.5% 3.3% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4%

AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL TAX PER HOUSEHOLD 1,913.53$ 1,923.69 1,986.36 2,055.05 2,125.65 2,198.00

-------------------------------------------- Projected --------------------------------------------

mtstdmanagement study final report - midland documents/kpmg-final...mtstdmanagement study final...

Documents