present: also present - arnpriorarnprior.ca/.../2013/12/council-minutes-2015-01-12.pdf2015/01/12...

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting

January 12, 2015 6:30 PM

Council Chambers, Town Hall, Arnprior

of 8

Present: Mayor David Reid Reeve Walter Stack Councillor Ted Strike Councillor Dan Lynch Councillor Lynn Grinstead Councillor Tom Burnette Councillor Frank Dugal Absent:

Also Present: Michael Wildman, CAO Maureen Spratt, Town Clerk Jennifer Morawiec, Director of Corporate

Services/Treasurer Renée Mask, Manager of Financial Services Karen DeLuca, Chief Librarian Glenn Arthur, Director of Recreation Services John Okum, Fire Chief Guy Bourgon, Director of Public Works Robin Smith, Planner Kaila Zamojski, Secretariat Services Coordinator

1. Call to Order Mayor David Reid called the Council meeting to order at 6:30 PM and welcomed those present.

2. Roll Call The roll was called, with all Members of Council being present.

3. Adoption of Agenda Resolution No. 001-15 Moved by Lynn Grinstead Seconded by Ted Strike BE IT RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the Regular Meeting of Council dated Monday, January 12, 2015 be adopted.

Resolution CARRIED 4. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

None

5. Question Period None

6. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meetings Resolution No. 002-15 Moved by Dan Lynch Seconded by Tom Burnette THAT the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council dated Monday, December 8, 2014 be adopted.

Resolution CARRIED


Resolution No. 003-15 Moved by Lynn Grinstead Seconded by Ted Strike THAT the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council dated Wednesday, December 10, 2014 be adopted.

Resolution CARRIED

Resolution No. 004-15 Moved by Walter Stack Seconded by Dan Lynch THAT the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council dated Monday, December 29, 2014 be adopted.

Resolution CARRIED

7. Awards/ Delegations/ Presentations a) Presentations:

i) Arnprior Public Library Budget – Susan Kirk, Chair & K. DeLuca, Chief Librarian

Susan Kirk, Chair of the Library Board and Karen DeLuca, Chief Librarian of the Arnprior Public Library provided a power point presentation outlining the Library’s 2015 Budget, attached as Appendix A and forming part of these minutes. Mayor Reid thanked Chair, Susan Kirk and Chief Librarian, Karen DeLuca for their continued efforts. ii) Tabling of the 2015 Draft Budget – CAO The CAO provided a power point presentation tabling the 2015 Draft Budget, attached as Appendix B and forming part of these minutes.

Mayor Reid and Council thanked the CAO and staff for the effort that goes into the preparation of the budget documents. He noted that this was a rather challenging budget, and wanted to recognize the effort put forth to help Council achieve the completion of the various items identified in the Long Range Capital Forecast and Asset Management Plan. Mayor Reid recommended that any questions that Council has on the budget documents are to be submitted to the CAO, prior to February 9th deliberations. The CAO will in turn respond to all of Council with the various questions and answers brought forward.

iii) Development Charges Review – CAO The CAO provided a power point presentation outlining the Development Charges Review, attached as Appendix C and forming part of these minutes.

b) Delegations:

i) Development Charges Review – Scott McEwan Mr. Scott McEwan, Owner of McEwan Homes attended the Council meeting as a delegation to express his concerns about Development Charges. Mr. McEwan provided information to Council outlining what he suggests are the negative effects on


the developer of the phased in Development Charges increases. He noted that house sales have decreased, and he suggested an increase in Development Charges is not going to have a positive effect on sales.

Mayor Reid thanked Mr. McEwan for his presentation, and indicated the Town does appreciate the current partnership it has with the various developers, as well as what they contribute over and above to assist the community. It is important the Town is not putting the developers at a disadvantage, however the current phase in proposed by Council is fair when looking at the comparators as well as the lesser rate that has been charged over the past ten years. The Mayor expressed his opinion that it is not fair to place the burden of costs related to development onto local tax payers. The Mayor also stated that it is not fair to ask tax payers to make up for the impact of a flooded market in more recent years. The community projects being undertaken by the Town will have a positive impact on the developers in the coming years. The reality is the Town is faced with fiscally challenging times, and it is important that growth pays for growth.

8. Public Meetings

None

9. Matters Tabled/Deferred/Unfinished Business None

10. Staff Reports None

11. Committee Reports and Minutes None

12. Notice of Motions None

13. Reeve’s Report From County Council Reeve Walter Stack provided the following information from the County of Renfrew:

A copy of the 2014 Municipal Councillor’s Guide Draft of the County’s Long Term Financial Plan There are 12 new Councillors in County of Renfrew Reeve Stack will be sitting on the County’s Finance and Administration Committee as

well as the CPR Acquisition and Negotiation Team The County of Renfrew has put forth a Nomination for Reeve Stack to sit as a

Representative on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Board of Directors. All of the information noted is available in the Clerk’s office.

Mayor Reid wished Reeve Stack well in the nomination to the FCM Board of Directors as a representative, and stated the Town would provide a letter supporting the nomination.


14. Correspondence & Petitions

a) Correspondence Package No. I-15-JAN-01 Resolution No. 005-15 Moved by Lynn Grinstead Seconded by Dan Lynch THAT the Correspondence Package No. I-15-JAN-01 be received as information and filed accordingly.

Resolution CARRIED Councillor Dan Lynch referred to the following items:

Item # 12 - Page 66 – Municipal Power Dam Special Payment Program o Councillor Lynch inquired if there were any updates that could be provided on

this item. Mayor Reid provided an update on the Working Group, and ongoing discussions are continuing to take place. He will be attending the Ontario Good Roads Association Conference on February 22-25, 2015 and putting information forward. Staff at the Town of Arnprior is also currently following up on the Town’s position in this matter. Council will be informed of any further progress made.

Item # 14 - Page 70 – Ontario Energy Board – Interim Rate Changes & Program Discontinuation

o There are two items of interest with Hydro: Hydro One Networks Inc.’s current Board-approved Tariff of Distribution

Rates and Charges is declared as being interim, effective January 1, 2015.

Hydro One Networks Inc.’s request to discontinue collection of revenue through the Regulation 330/09 renewable connection funding, added from provincial ratepayers as of December 31, 2014 is granted. This will significantly reduce the amount collected from all Ontario customers.

o The CAO noted staff will continue to monitor this and inform Council of any new information that is made available.

Item # 18 - Page 100 – AMO Watch File – November 18, 2014 o The Ministry of Transportation’s $1 million, two year pilot grant program is

available to municipalities that partner with organizations (such as: health and community agencies, transit agencies, school bus operators and private transit operators) to coordinate local transportation initiatives. Submissions are due by January 30, 2015.

o Councillor Lynch inquired whether or not the Town has considered partnering with anyone for this grant opportunity. The CAO noted that staff will look into this; however we are currently prioritizing other grant applications at this time.

Item # 19 - Page 120 – Ottawa Valley Business – Issue No. 149


o Information for business owners: The Ontario Government will introduce an Ontario Pension Plan in 2017. This would require employers and employees to contribute 1.9% of a worker’s salary to a pension for workers who do not already have a pension plan in place.

b) Correspondence Package No. A-15-JAN-01 Resolution No. 006-15 Moved by Lynn Grinstead Seconded by Frank Dugal That the Correspondence Package No. A-15-JAN-01 be received and that the recommendations outlined be brought forward for Council’s consideration.

Resolution CARRIED

Resolution No. 007-15 Moved by Lynn Grinstead Seconded by Frank Dugal THAT Council receive the correspondence from the Arnprior District Quilters Guild; AND FURTHER THAT Council approve the Arnprior District Quilters Guild’s request to waive the Hall Rental fees at the Nick Smith Centre, for the Biannual Quilt Show fundraiser.

Resolution CARRIED

Resolution No. 008-15 Moved by Lynn Grinstead Seconded by Frank Dugal THAT Council receive the correspondence from the Arnprior Agricultural Society; AND FURTHER THAT Council approve the Agricultural Society’s request to waive the Hall Rental fees at the Nick Smith Centre, for a fundraiser event on Saturday, May 2, 2015.

Resolution CARRIED

c) Recreation and Library Joint Use Service Agreements Mayor Reid expressed his pleasure in reporting that the Town of Arnprior and Township of McNab/Braeside were able to put an interim Joint Use Recreation and Library Service Agreement in place and the two municipalities have agreed to commence working on a long term mutually beneficial agreement. He thanked McNab/Braeside Council, Arnprior Council and Staff for their efforts in this matter.

15. Bylaws/ Resolutions

a) By-laws

Resolution No. 009-15 Moved by Tom Burnette Seconded by Walter Stack THAT the following by-laws be and are hereby enacted and passed:


i) By-law No. 6418-15 – Amend By-law No. 6076-12 Regulation of Smoking on Municipally-Owned Property & Public Places

ii) By-law No. 6419-15 – Repeal Policy #036 and By-law No. 4789-99, as amended – Distribution of Town Pins

iii) By-law No. 6420-15 – Pre-Approve 2015 Funding – Water/Wastewater Study iv) By-law No. 6421-15 – COLA Adjustment

Resolution CARRIED

Resolution No. 010-15 Moved by Dan Lynch Seconded by Walter Stack THAT the following by-law be and is hereby enacted and passed:

v) By-law No. 6417-15 – Repeal & Replace By-law No. 6202-13 Procedural By-law Resolution CARRIED as Amended

Resolution No. 011-15 Moved by Ted Strike Seconded by Dan Lynch THAT Section 3.2 of By-law No. 6417-15 be amended basing the Deputy Mayor rotation on a seniority basis. Mayor Reid requested a recorded vote: Councillor Tom Burnette YES Councillor Frank Dugal NO Councillor Lynn Grinstead NO Councillor Dan Lynch NO Councillor Ted Strike YES Reeve Walter Stack NO Mayor David Reid NO

Resolution LOST

Councillor Strike noted his preference to appoint the Deputy Mayor position based on past practice, being seniority based.

Resolution No. 012-15 Moved by Frank Dugal Seconded by Walter Stack THAT Section 5.2 of By-law No. 6417-15 be replaced with the following wording:

“Communication devices shall not be permitted to be utilized when Council is holding a meeting, with the exception of laptops.”

Resolution CARRIED


b) Resolution(s) i) Support – County of Huron – Postal Delivery Resolution No. 013-15 Moved by Lynn Grinstead Seconded by Dan Lynch WHEREAS Councillor Lynch, at the Regular Meeting of Council held on December 8, 2014, requested that Item #2 of Correspondence Package I-14-DEC-21 be brought forward for consideration of Council. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receive the correspondence dated November 25, 2014 from the County of Huron; AND FURTHER THAT Council of the Corporation of the Town of Arnprior support the County of Huron’s resolution regarding their objection to Canada Post’s proposed plan to end residential home delivery in Canada; AND FURTHER THAT Council of the Corporation of the Town of Arnprior forward support of this resolution to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), John Yakabuski MPP, and Cheryl Gallant MP.

Resolution LOST

16. Announcements Councillor Dan Lynch made the following announcement:

On January 3rd, 2015 Councillor Lynch attended the New Year’s Levee with Cheryl Gallant, MP and John Yakabuski, MPP in Cobden. Councillor Lynch was presented with a commemorative book for Town of Arnprior, titled “Winning” in celebration of Paralympic Sport in Canada.

17. Media Questions

None

18. Closed Session Resolution No. 014-15 (8:55 PM) Moved by Lynn Grinstead Seconded by Frank Dugal THAT Council move into Closed Session regarding one matter pursuant to Section 239 (2) (b) and (e) of the Municipal Act, 2001 regarding personal matters about an identifiable individual,


including municipal or local board employees and litigation or potential litigation, includingmatters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board (Claim).

Resolution CARRIED

Resolution No. 015-15 (9:14 PM)Moved by Walter StackSeconded by Dan LynchThat Council resume to Open Session.

Resolution CARRIED

19. Confirmatory By-LawResolution No. 016-15Moved by Tom BurnetteSeconded by Walter StackTHAT By-law No. 6422-15 being a By-law to confirm the proceedings of the Regular Meeting ofCouncil held on January 12, 2015 and it is hereby enacted and passed.

Resolution CARRIED

20. AdiournmentResolution No. 01 7-15Moved by Lynn GrinsteadSeconded by Frank DugalTHAT this meeting of Council be adjourned at 9:15 PM.

Resolution CARRIED

Walter Stack, Deputy Mayor Maureen Spratt, Town Clerk

Arnprior Public Library BoardArnprior Public Library Board

Budget Presentation 2015Budget Presentation 2015

Funding StructureFunding Structure

• The library must adhere to the Ontario P bli Lib i APublic Libraries Act

• Support from the Town is augmented by 2 i i i l ( )service agreements, provincial grant(s)

and self-generated revenuesE h b d t li h b th hl• Each budget line has been thoroughly analyzed with the goal to reinstate level of service to that of 2013 in the most costservice to that of 2013 in the most cost effective manner.

kzamojski

Typewritten Text

Appendix A

Level of ServiceLevel of Service

• 46 hours per week – evening hours i d l S d hreinstated; longer Saturday hours

• Extended summer hours• Adult programming• Teen and children’s programsp g• Homebound delivery service• Readers’ advisoryReaders advisory• Technology training / assistance

Extended Summer HoursExtended Summer Hours

Full schedule of children’s programs augmented by open doors to allow attending families, general public and visitors full access to servicesgeneral public and visitors full access to services.

Open doors Monday – Saturday at 10 a.m.p y y

Return of Adult ProgrammingReturn of Adult Programming

Children’s ProgramsChildren s ProgramsRegular children’s programs

All ti i t iAll participants require a

valid library card to attend.

Teen Programming

Morning class visits when library is closedCurrently nine regular

class visits; outreach

to schools & daycares

Return of Readers’ Advisory and yExpanded Technology Assistance

eBooks circulation accounts for about 5% of the monthly transactions.

Assistance with laptops and basic

Specialized displays contribute significantly to the monthly

circulation statistics

computer skills training account for most of our training – particularly for seniors.

F tFactors2013 ‐ Actuals

Arnprior $262 KMcNab/Braeside $86 K

2015 – Grant Request

Arnprior $299 K

Total Payroll portion $315 KMcNab/Braeside $ 91 K

Total Payroll portion $371 K“I have belonged to a number of libraries in several cities. The Arnprior Public Library is the

best and the most welcoming and

from a 2014 survey

best and the most welcoming and inclusive one I have found”

One of 91 respondents from a 2014 survey

ComparisonsComparisons370,000

350,000

360,000 Renfrew 2013 $360,260

330,000

340,000

Perth 2013 $358,100

310 000

320,000

300,000

310,000

Payroll

Arnprior 2013 $315,233

Budget Line Scrutiny

Revenues– Service agreementService agreement– Fines– Sundry revenue– Capacity grant – hardware reviewp y g

Expenditures• Re-alignment of tasks /duties for part time staffg p• Book budget – reduction of $3K (offset from reserve for books)• Subscriptions • Children’s program support• Communications • Education / training and mileage

Questions?Questions?

Tabling of 2015 D ft B dg tDraft Budget

Michael Wildman, CAO

Council – January 12, 2015

Guiding PrinciplesA i S i PlArnprior Strategic Plan

• Vision: Sustainable financial model: Measured by ydebt ratios and a sound long range financial plan in place

• Vision: Improved infrastructure: We have an implementable 10 year capital plan including a lifecycle strategy for all assetsstrategy for all assets.

• Key Priority Area 2013 – Action Plan – Financial Model (2013 Budget; 10 Year Long Range CapitalModel (2013 Budget; 10 Year Long Range Capital Forecast; Resolve & Improve Financial Issues)

2

kzamojski

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

Guiding PrinciplesA i S i PlArnprior Strategic Plan

• Key Priority Areas for 2014 & 2015 are “Infrastructure, y y ,Economic Development and Marketing”

• The Asset Management Plan is the primary tool to g p ysupport our Infrastructure Key Priority Area

3

ConsiderationsA M PlAsset Management Plan

• In 2013 the province mandated preparation of up-to-date p p p pcomprehensive Asset Management Plans in order to be eligible for grant funding

I D b 2013 C il d th fi t TOA A t• In December 2013 Council approved the first TOA Asset Management Plan

• 2013 AMP recommended the following levels of2013 AMP recommended the following levels of investment for linear assets:

• Roads $900,000

• Sidewalks $200,000

• Watermains $75,000

S $200 000• Sewers $200,000

4


• In 2014, staff prepared the budget in order to bring , p p g ginvestment levels up to (or better than) 2013 AMP recommendations (overlay based approach for roads)

2014 LRCF i l d l d b d 2013 AMP• 2014 LRCF is also developed based on 2013 AMP forecasts or greater

• In 2014, Council approved updated AMP levels ofIn 2014, Council approved updated AMP levels of investment using enhanced rehabilitation techniques to further extend the life of assets resulting in longer term cost savings and efficienciescost savings and efficiencies

• The 2014 AMP investment strategy is to add an additional $75,000 per year for 10 yearsp y y

5


• Given the long term objective of increasing levels of g j ginvestment into Asset Management there will likely be a need for additional Engineering Resources to be allocatedallocated

• CAO will report to Council on the recommended most effective way to allocate resources in 2015

6

Considerations AMPL l f ILevels of Investment

Year Roads Sidewalks Watermains Sewers Total

2010 $250,538(963m)

$112,700(773m2)

$0 $0 $362,938

2011 $109,834(700m)

$74,757(244m2)

$0 $0 $184,591

2012 $449,947(1,062m)

$169,818(1,549m2)

$75,002(82m)

$112,657(346m)

$807,424

2013 $769,404(2,675m)

$129,383(964m2)

$40,720(82m)

$163,615(460m)

$1,103,122

2013 AMP $900 000 $200 000 $75 000 $200 000 $1 375 0002013 AMP $900,000 $200,000 $75,000 $200,000 $1,375,000

2014 $872,176(2,025m)

$274,217(1,145m2)

$178,000(All Design/Eng.)

$93,000(All Design/Eng.)

$1,417,393

2015 (planned) $1,199,400 $226,750 $254,900 $171,300 $1,852,3502015 (planned) $1,199,400 $226,750 $254,900 $171,300 $1,852,350

2014 AMP Recommended

$1,900,000 $200,000 $300,000 $200,000 $2,600,000

7

Financial Controls – 80% Rule & E kiEarmarking

• Since 2013 several new financial controls have been established

• Two key controls are, 80% Rule & Expenditure E kiEarmarking

• CAO has implemented 80% Rule on Discretionary Spending to control & mitigate cost center overagesSpending to control & mitigate cost center overages

• CAO requires “earmarking” to be identified prior to allowing overages to ensure that there is either an ff tti t i h ibloffsetting revenue or cost savings wherever possible,

pursuant to the Delegation of Authority By-law

8

2015 Operating Budget Sheets2015 Operating Budget Sheets• Column 1 – 2014 Actuals. Note: these are unaudited

amounts some invoices remain outstanding at point ofamounts, some invoices remain outstanding at point of printing

• Column 2 – 2014 Budget

• Column 3 – 2015 Draft Budget

• Column 4 - $ Budget Variance 2014 vs 2015 demonstrates the (increase)/decrease in revenue and thethe (increase)/decrease in revenue and the increase/(decrease) in expense

9

2014 Water/Wastewater Services2014 Water/Wastewater Services

• Consumption is lower than forecasted as some higher p gend users have adapted their processes to use less water as a result of the impacts of the declining block rate however due to the large meter installation inrate, however due to the large meter installation in August, consumption is still projected to increase.

• 2014 Expenses are higher than average as weather conditions resulted in increased numbers of water and sewer breaks.

10

Streetlights LED RetrofitStreetlights LED Retrofit

• The transition to LED streetlights has been completed g pand we are beginning to realize the savings.

• Although we only have two months of billing to compare th f th d i thl billi hthus far, the decrease in monthly energy billing has gone from $11,000 to $2,000.

• Staff will be monitoring overall performance of the LEDStaff will be monitoring overall performance of the LED Retrofit as more billing is received.

11

Cemetery ColumbariumsCemetery Columbariums

• In 2014 staff prepared a report to Council which outlined p p pways to increase fees and maximize use of cemetery lands.

I t t i C l b i ill• Investment in Columbariums will:

– Increase Cemetery capacity

– Satisfy public demand– Satisfy public demand

– Generate revenues to support long-term cemetery maintenance

• This type of revenue generating investment is in line with the pay-as-you-go financial model

12

Cemetery ColumbariumsCemetery Columbariums

• Potential for generating revenue is far greater than g g ginvestment interest earned. (i.e. 2% vs 100%+)

• Each columbarium has the potential to net over $30K in d f th tproceeds for the cemetery

• Estimated “average” niche fees of $1,125 are less than 1/3 of Ottawa cemetery costs and are comparable to the1/3 of Ottawa cemetery costs and are comparable to the lowest fees found for other municipal cemeteries, make the purchase of a columbarium niche attractive purchasers and an excellent revenue generatorpurchasers and an excellent revenue generator.

13

Future Hydro/Gas IncreaseFuture Hydro/Gas Increase

• Energy Board applications to increase Hydro & Gas gy pp yUtility.

• Indications were to expect of up to 50% over 5 years. Alth h th i t ffi i l t iAlthough the increases are not official, current increases are trending towards 5% a year.

• Regardless of the final amount of any increases, theyRegardless of the final amount of any increases, they are expected to continue. Staff are taking measures to adjust the draft budget accordingly, however, it will be prudent to plan for continued increases as part of theprudent to plan for continued increases as part of the Town’s long range forecasts.

14

Future Capital PressuresFuture Capital Pressures

• A substantial amount of contributions to reserves will be required to fund the upcoming Downtown Revitalization, other large Asset Management Life Cycle requirements and LRCF expendituresand LRCF expenditures.

• Proceeding with the Downtown Revitalization and other Asset Management Life Cycle projects over 2016-2017 will cause a temporary shortfall in contributions to reserves (assuming no new grants or new borrowing).

15


• The pay-as-you-go model is designed to “over p y y g gcontribute” to reserves as a practice in order to fund occasional short falls such as outlined above.

A hi h l l ti f ti t t th f d i• A high level timeframe estimate to recover the funds is approximately 3 years after the projects are complete.

16


• The impact on reserves will be as follows:The impact on reserves will be as follows:

2016 2017 20182016 2017 2018

Reserve Contributions $3,384,386 $3,534,425 $3,750,988

Less: Downtown Revitalization $3,142,430 $3,104,424 $1,518,012

Funds Available $241,956 $430,001 $2,223,976

Less: Forecasted Other Expenditures $1,328,320 $1,316,500 $2,117,999

Surplus/(Shortfall) to be Funded by ($1,086,364) ($886,499) $114,977Reserves

17

18

ConsiderationsS lf S i i C CSelf-Sustaining Cost Centers

The following programs as established as self-sustaining g p g gcost centers:

• Wastewater Services

• Waterworks Services

• Cemeteries

Protection Inspection and Control (PIC)• Protection, Inspection and Control (PIC)

19


• Water and Wastewater is in the last year of the 3 year y yPhase Out of Declining Block Rate for higher end users. No increase recommended for residential or low end usersusers

20


• Water and Wastewater Residential rate compared to similar Municipalities.

Arnprior Renfrew North Grenville Gananoquep q

2015 2015 2015 2015

Consumption Water 1.58 2.28 1.59 1.29

Consumption Wastewater 1.38 1.76 1.59 1.59

21


• Per 2014 Budget process, 2015 is the second of a three g p ,year phase-in increase in the Garbage Rate, $130 in 2014, $135 in 2015 and $140 in 2016 in order to breakeven and maintain pace with growth in futurebreakeven and maintain pace with growth in future years. Arnprior’s rates are far less than comparators.

Town of

Arnprior

Town of

Petawawa

Township of

Laurentian Valley

Township of

Mcnab/Breaside

$135 $178 $178 $180$135 $178 $178 $180

22

Budget ApproachBudget Approach

• Comprehensive review of every line itemp y

• 3 Year Trend Analysis of every line item

• The “Pay-as-you-go” principle continues to be the objective in order to avoid borrowing and to build reserves to fund future expenditures

• The draft budget does not propose any new borrowing• The draft budget does not propose any new borrowing

• The draft budget does not contemplate drawdown from existing reserves or reserve fund balances in 2015

• The draft budget contemplates a net increase into reserves and reserve funds

23


• Capital projects over $10,000 are taken from the Long p p j $ , gRange Capital Forecast

• Mandatory “M” projects have been included in the C it l B d t (R f t C it l T b)Capital Budget (Refer to Capital Tab)

• “M” projects include mandatory or mission critical projects (required by law, based on Council direction orprojects (required by law, based on Council direction or approved plans, etc.).

24


• P1 and P2 Capital Projects are considered highest and p j gsecondary priorities for inclusion, but are not included in the budget

C il l t f th P1 P2 C it l• Council can select from the P1 or P2 Capital Expenditures List with the knowledge that $75,531 will equate to an approximate Municipal Tax Rate increase of 1%

25

Draft BudgetDraft Budget

• MPAC Phase In is not a Municipal Tax Rate Increase, it p ,is an increase in Assessment due to MPAC’s 4 year current value assessment phase-in.

C tl th b d t t d ld b d• Currently the budget as presented could be approved as a 0% Municipal Tax Rate increase.

• Staff is recommending a $100,000 Tax RevenueStaff is recommending a $100,000 Tax Revenue increase to fund future pay-as-you-go projects (this is a 1.33% Municipal Tax Rate Increase), specifically Down Town Revitalization 2016/17 (Strategic Plan) AssetTown Revitalization 2016/17 (Strategic Plan), Asset Management Life Cycle Renewal, Town Hall (LRCF), as well as all other LRCF capital projects.

26

Draft BudgetDraft Budget• The Reserve and Reserve Fund Contributions are

shown separately, not as part of the operating expenses.p y p p g p

• Draft Budget incorporates a total contribution to Reserve and Reserve Funds of $3,563,650.

D ft B d t i t f th 2015 R• Draft Budget incorporates a use of the 2015 Reserve and Reserve Fund(s) contributions of $3,102,500.

• Net Contribution to Reserves and Reserve Funds isNet Contribution to Reserves and Reserve Funds is $461,150 (based on 0% Municipal Tax Rate Increase).

• Should Council choose to implement a 1.33% Municipal Tax Rate increase as recommended, net 2015 contribution to Reserve and Reserve Funds is $561,606

27

OptionsOptions

• Municipal Tax Rate increases and additional revenue pcomparison

Municipal Tax Rate Increase

Additional Revenue

Annual Cost per Average Home Value

Monthly Cost per Average Home Value

0% $0 $0 $0

0.5% $37,765 $8 $0.67

1% $75,531 $15 $1.25

1.33% $100,456 $20 $1.67,

1.5% $113,296 $23 $1.92

2% $151,061 $30 $2.50

28

Reserve & Reserve FundsReserve & Reserve Funds2015 Budget

Contributions to Reserves

Police Reserve ‐

Winter Control Reserve 20,000

Election Reserve 7,000

Marketing & Economic Development Reserve 10,000

37,000

Contributions to Reserve Funds

Landfill Reserve Fund 51,000

Wastewater Reserve Fund 383 453Wastewater Reserve Fund 383,453

Water Reserve Fund 358,994

Development Charges Reserve Fund** 535,000

Gas Tax Reserve Fund 234,944

Capital Expenditure Reserve Fund 1,958,259

Museum Reserve Fund 5,000

3,526,650

Total Contributions to Reserve / Reserve Funds 3,563,650

29

Pay-as-you-go E (b S )Expenses (by Source)

2015 Budget

Expenditures from Reserves

Marketing & Economic Development Reserve (15,000)

Building Reserve (22,000)

(37,000)

Expenditures from Reserve Funds

Development Charges Reserve Fund (328,867)

Albert/Malloch Cemetery Reserve Fund (32 000)Albert/Malloch Cemetery Reserve Fund (32,000)

Wastewater Reserve Fund (73,790)

Water Reserve Fund (383,629)

Gas Tax Reserve Fund (234,944)

Capital Expenditure Reserve Fund (2 012 271)Capital Expenditure Reserve Fund (2,012,271)

(3,065,500)

Total Expenditures from Reserve / Reserve Funds (3 102 500)

30

Total Expenditures from Reserve / Reserve Funds (3,102,500)

Net ContributionsR & R F dReserve & Reserve Funds

2015 Budget

Contribution to Reserves 37,000

Contribution to Reserve Funds 3,526,650

Total Contributions 3 563 650Total Contributions 3,563,650

Expenditures from Reserves (37,000)

Expenditures from Reserve Funds (3,065,500)

Total Expenditures (3,102,500)

Net Addition to Reserves (0% Municipal Tax Rate Increase) 461,150 ( p )

Municipal Tax Rate Increase of 1.33% 100,456

Net Addition to Reserves 561,606

31

Capital Expenditures B DBy Department

32

Draft Budget SummaryDraft Budget Summary2014 2015

Budget Budget % OF TOTALTAXATION REVENUE (7 492 299) (7 877 011) 88 7%TAXATION REVENUE (7,492,299) (7,877,011) 88.7%

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL PARTNERSHIP FUND (1,147,300) (1,008,500) 11.3%

(8,639,599) (8,885,511) 100.0%

GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,227,451 1,313,799 14.8%

PROTECTION TO PERSONS & PROPERTY 2 576 531 2 315 352 26 1%PROTECTION TO PERSONS & PROPERTY 2,576,531 2,315,352 26.1%

PUBLIC WORKS 1,694,215 1,696,356 19.1%

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (665,189) (809,232) ‐9.1%

CEMETERY 0 0 0.0%

PARKS AND RECREATION 1,118,460 1,006,247 11.3%

COMMUNITY SERVICES 436 735 477 883 5 4%COMMUNITY SERVICES 436,735 477,883 5.4%

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 217,850 252,100 2.8%

CONTRIBUTION TO RESERVES 2,033,546 2,633,006 29.6%

0.0%

8,639,599 8,885,511 100.0%

NET OPERATING BUDGET 0 0

Note: Departmental expenditures are shown net of department specific revenues.

33

Net Operating Expensesb Dby Department

34

Budget DocumentBudget Document

• Tabs 1 to 10

– 1 – Budget Summary

– 2 to 11 – Budget Detail by Department with Budget Notes (Blue pages)

• Supporting Tabs

Budget Presentation– Budget Presentation

– Reserve and Reserve Fund Schedules

– Debt ScheduleDebt Schedule

– Capital Projects

– Community Group Consultations

35

y p

Schedule of DeliberationsSchedule of Deliberations

Monday, February 9, 2015 Tuesday, February 10, 2015 Wednesday, February 11, 2015 Thursday, February 12, 2015

at 6:30 pm at 5:00 pm at 5:00 pm at 5:00 pmat 6:30 pm at 5:00 pm at 5:00 pm at 5:00 pm

TAB 1 ‐ Budget Summary Follow‐up from Prior Night Follow‐up from Prior Night

TAB 2 ‐ Taxation TAB 4 ‐ Protection to Persons & PropertyTAB 10 ‐ Community Development

TAB 3 ‐ Council ‐ Fire ‐ Protection/Inspection

TAB 3 ‐ Corporate Services ‐ Police ‐ Planning

Cl k TAB 9 M M k i & E i D l

Tentative date for the Adoption of

the 2015 Budget

‐ Clerk TAB 9 ‐ Museum ‐ Marketing & Economic Devel.

‐ Corporate Management TAB 7 ‐ Parks and Recreation TAB 5 ‐ Crossing Guards

‐ Human Resources ‐ Parks TAB 4 ‐ Animal/Parking

‐ Information Technology ‐ Marina TAB 9 ‐ Other

TAB 5 ‐ Public Works ‐ Programs TAB ‐ Capital

‐ Public Works (roads) ‐ Nick Smith Centre ‐ WIP

‐ Vehicles & Equipment TAB ‐ Reserves

‐ Buildings TAB ‐ Debt

TAB 8 ‐ Cemetery TAB ‐ Consultations

TAB 6 ‐ Environmental Services

‐ Wastewater

‐Waterworks Waterworks

‐ Waste Management

36

Next StepsNext Steps

• Deliberations – February 9 – 12thy

• Budget Approval – February 12th

• County Sets Tax Ratios – April 30th

• Municipal Tax Rates - May

37


38

2015 Development Ch g R iCharges Review

M. Wildman, CAO

Council Meeting – Monday, January 12, 2015

BackgroundBackground

• In 2010 a statutory 5 year DevelopmentIn 2010 a statutory 5 year Development Charge (DC) Review was conducted by Watson and Associates on behalf of theWatson and Associates on behalf of the Town.

• With the passing of the By law DC’s were• With the passing of the By-law, DC s were to be indexed with increases annually in accordance with the CPI however theaccordance with the CPI, however, the Town did not implement CPI increases.

2

kzamojski

Typewritten Text

Appendix C


• The 2010 by-law fell significantly short of collecting enough DC funds to cover the costs attributable to development.

• The charge remained at $6,000, although based on projected DC expenditures it p j pshould have been $13,353.

• This resulted in approximate losses ofThis resulted in approximate losses of $735,300 per 100 permits issued

3

BackgroundgCost to Town/Savings to Developers Resulting from Historical Reduced DC Rates

Cost to

YearRevenue

Collected

Cost Recovery

Revenue

Cost to

Town/Savings to

Developers

2006 $394,336.00 $983,462.00 ($589,126.00)

2007 $258 354 00 $572 801 00 ($314 447 00)2007 $258,354.00 $572,801.00 ($314,447.00)

2008 $354,120.00 $706,570.00 ($352,450.00)

2009 $221,056.00 $400,992.00 ($179,936.00)

2010 $392,304.00 $716,811.00 ($324,507.00)

$ $ ($ )2011 $519,240.00 $996,756.00 ($477,516.00)

2012 $405,240.00 $748,749.00 ($343,509.00)

2013 $903,216.00 $1,418,361.00 ($515,145.00)

2006‐2013 ($3,096,636.00)

4


• Therefore the shortfall in DC revenues required to support development would have to made up by rate payers.

• It is important to note that residential development does not generate a net p gpositive fiscal impact on the property tax base (Watson & Associates), meaning that ( ), gresidential development does not pay for itself through taxation. g

5


• In 2013 a new DC review was initiated byIn 2013, a new DC review was initiated by the Town with assistance from Watson and AssociatesAssociates.

• On December 9, 2013, a public meeting was advertised and held per section 12 ofwas advertised and held per section 12 of the Development Charges Act, 1997.

N bli t i d ( d• No public comments were received (and the by-law was not appealed).

6


• On January 13 2014 Council adopted theOn January 13, 2014 Council adopted the DC Background Study for the period of 2014-20182014 2018.

• The by-law contemplated a 5 year “phase-in” period in order to achieve full costin period, in order to achieve full cost recovery.

Th l h i i i th• The annual phase-in increases are in the order of $1200.

7


• Development Charges Phase In 2014-Development Charges Phase In 20142018

Year Development Charge

2014 $7,526

2015 $8,895

2016 $10,035

2017 $11,290

2018 $12 5442018 $12,544

8


Estimated Costs/Losses based on the phase in using a 5 year average of permits issued/ p g y g p

YearRevenue

Collected

Cost Recovery

Revenue

Cost to

Town/Savings to

DevelopersDevelopers

2014 $466,243.00 $766,930.00 ($300,687.00)

2015 $777,101.27 $1,087,504.60 ($310,403.33)

2016 $888,091.02 $1,093,514.80 ($205,423.78)

2017 $999 119 06 $1 099 600 60 ($100 481 54)2017 $999,119.06 $1,099,600.60 ($100,481.54)

2018 $1,110,108.81 $1,105,762.00 $4,346.81

2014‐2018 ($912,648.83)

9


• Upon passing the new DC BackgroundUpon passing the new DC Background Study & By-law in January 2014, members of Council requested that staff provide anof Council requested that staff provide an update in early 2015.

• Local Residential Developers were notified• Local Residential Developers were notified of the intent to make this presentation by email and were also advised earlier inemail, and were also advised earlier in 2014. Copies of this PPT were provided.

10

DiscussionDiscussion

• DC’s are collected to offset the capitalDC s are collected to offset the capital costs that are directly attributable to growth (development)growth (development).

• The principle of the DC Act being that growth should pay for itselfgrowth should pay for itself.

• The DC Act does require deductions for “B fit t E i ti (BTE)” hi h“Benefit to Existing (BTE)” which are funded by rate payers.

11


• Notwithstanding the 5 year phase-inNotwithstanding the 5 year phase in period, many capital works projects are not collected to the fullest extent in thenot collected to the fullest extent in the current DC by-law. For example, some capital works are only funded 30% by DCscapital works are only funded 30% by DCs with balance funded by the rate payers.

12

DiscussionsDiscussions• DC works generally include new works or

i t d d t f ilit t thequipment needed to facilitate growth or rehabilitation to existing infrastructure

d d t t b fit tneeded to support or as a benefit to growth.

• The Asset Management Plan identified numerous aging infrastructure requiring rehabilitation, some of which supports growth.

13

Building Permit ActivityBuilding Permit Activity

• A review of Building Permit activityA review of Building Permit activity confirms that there has been no appreciable change in BP activity sinceappreciable change in BP activity since implementing the new DC rates and also notwithstanding the slow down in thenotwithstanding the slow down in the economy.

• A difference of 5 BPs when comparing• A difference of 5 BPs when comparing 2012 to 2014.

14


• The draft 2015 Budget (developed basedThe draft 2015 Budget (developed based on the LRCF) is a lighter year for DC expenditures utilizing $270 000 of the DCexpenditures, utilizing $270,000 of the DC revenue collected.

• The total losses to the Town and savings• The total losses to the Town and savings to the Developers from 2006 to 2013 is $3 096 636 and 2014 to 2018 projected as$3,096,636 and 2014 to 2018 projected as $912,649, for a total of $4,009,285.

15


• Future projects such as the Downtown Revitalization & other projects will utilize over 100% of the DC revenue collected annually.

• Given that the Town has not historically ycollected enough DCs to cover the cost of developer related works and is still not at pfull cost recovery, there will already be shortfalls which will cause deficits.

16


• Should Council choose to move forward with the Downtown Revitalization, 2016-2018 DC portions of that project and other p p jforecasted works would be $2,455,270. This will result in a deficit in DC Reserve Funds of $397,209.

• If the DC Phase In is maintained, it willIf the DC Phase In is maintained, it will take approximately 3 years to return to positive net contributions to reserves.positive net contributions to reserves.

17


• Deferring the Phase In will delay recoveryDeferring the Phase In will delay recovery to net positive for DC Reserves which will either cause projects to beeither cause projects to be delayed/cancelled, require new debt or require further deficits all generallyrequire further deficits, all generally contrary to the pay-as-you-go model.

18

DiscussionDiscussion• Deferring the approved annual Phase In

increases will also result in increasedincreases will also result in increased shortfalls which will need to be funded by ratepayersratepayers.

• For illustration purposes, deferring the 2015 Phase In increase would amount to an additional $125,500 shortfall for every 100 i i d hi h100 permits issued which equates to nearly a 2% Municipal Tax Rate Increase.

19


• The forecasted losses for 2015 due toThe forecasted losses for 2015 due to “phase in” based on historical permit activity is $304 469 Therefore deferringactivity is $304,469. Therefore deferring phase in would add to the forecasted losses caused by the 5 year phase inlosses caused by the 5 year phase in.

• With only a finite number of developable lots remaining opportunities to collectlots remaining, opportunities to collect necessary DC funds are running out.

20


• It should be noted that certainIt should be noted that certain developments are dependant upon specific DC projects advancing (i especific DC projects advancing (i.e. watermains for Fire Protection & capacity). As such without sufficient DC fundingAs such, without sufficient DC funding, certain developments would not be able to proceed This results in a domino effect inproceed. This results in a domino effect in that less DCs would be collected if development where to be stoppeddevelopment where to be stopped.

21

2015 Development Charge R S ( i d M i i li i )Rate Survey (serviced Municipalities)

Municipality Development Charge Ranking

Single & Semi‐Detached

p y p g g

Ottawa (Outside the Greenbelt) 30,362$ 1

Ottawa (Inside the Greenbelt) 22,173$ 2

Ottawa (Rural Serviced) 19,900$ 3

North Grenville ‐ Outside Kemptville Service Area 1 17,309$ 4p

Kingston 16,881$ 5

Clarence ‐ Rockland 14,550$ 6

Carleton Place * 10,051$ 7

Mississippi Mills 9,768$ 8

Arnprior 8,895$ 9

North Perth 8,051$ 11

North Grenville ‐ Inside Kemptville Service Area 1 7,760$ 12

Renfrew (Northeast Service Area and Municipal Wide)** 5,839$ 10

Petawawa 4,682$ 13

Pembroke 3,426$ 14

Renfrew (Municipal Wide)** 3,350$ 15

* Carleton Place rates include DC and Sewer Rate

**R f DC l d R d S S i

22

**Renfrew DC exclude Road System Services

2015 Development Charge Rates2015 Development Charge Rates

23

AMO Pre-budget SubmissionAMO Pre budget Submission

January 6, 2015y ,

Association of Municipalities of Ontario released its

Pre-Budget Submission Outline

which included 7 themes.

“A healthy future for municipal governments in this provincewill include among other matters the following:will include among other matters, the following:

7. Growth must pay for growth. On DevelopmentCharges, artificial discounts for transit, etc. and exclusionsg , ,(e.g. hospitals) need to end.”

24


25

present: also present - arnpriorarnprior.ca/.../2013/12/council-minutes-2015-01-12.pdf2015/01/12...

Documents