Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-13FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 CITY OF KITCHENER The Finance and Corporate Services Committee met this date commencing at 11:03 a.m. Present: Councillor S. Davey - Chair Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Gazzola, D. Glenn-Graham, B. Ioannidis, Z. Janecki, Y. Fernandes, K. Galloway, B. Vrbanovic, F. Etherington and P. Singh. Staff: J. Willmer, Chief Administrative Officer D. Chapman, Deputy CAO, Finance & Corporate Services M. May, Deputy CAO, Community Services J. Witmer, Acting Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Services J. Evans, Director of Revenue S. Adams, Director, Community & Corporate Planning R. Hagey, Director, Financial Planning R. Gosse, Director, Legislated Services & City Clerk H. Gross, Interim Director, Engineering R. Reiger, Executive Director, Economic Development C. Fletcher, Director, Facilities Management T. Beckett, Fire Chief C. Bluhm, Manager, Downtown Community Development G. Hummel, Manager, Park Planning, Development & Operations D. Ritz, Supervisor, Design & Development J. Billett, Committee Administrator FCS-12-136 - SOCIAL GAMING EVENT LICENCE - BETH JACOB CONGREGATION 1. The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-136, dated July 24 2012, regarding a request to conduct a social gaming event. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - it was resolved: “That the City of Kitchener has no objection to a Provincial Lottery Licence being issued to the Beth Jacob Congregation to conduct a social gaming event at the Beth Jacob Synagogue, 161 Stirling Avenue South, Kitchener, on October 17, 2012.” FCS-12-137 - FAIR OR EXHIBITION GAMING EVENT LICENCE 2. - KITCHENER-WATERLOO OKTOBERFEST The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-137, dated July 24, 2012 regarding a request to hold a fair or exhibition event. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - it was resolved: “That the City of Kitchener has no objection to a Provincial Lottery Licence being issued to Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest to hold a Fair or Exhibition Gaming Event from October 5 to October 17, 2012 at Bingeman’s Marshall Hall, 425 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener.” INS-12-041 - CITY HALL LEASE RENEWAL - FEELINGS FROM THE HEART 3. The Committee considered Infrastructure Services Department report INS-12-041, dated June 15, 2012 regarding renewal of a lease to operate wedding chapels at City Hall. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - it was resolved: “That the lease to the business, known as “Feelings From the Heart” to operate two wedding chapels at City Hall be approved for renewal for an additional three year period commencing on the first day of September, 2012 until August 31, 2015, and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement satisfactory to the City Solicitor.” FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 115 - CITY OF KITCHENER PRESENTATION - MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION (MPAC) 4. - UPDATE ON MPAC REASSESSMENT Mr. John Hebden, Municipal Relations Representative, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), presented information on the role and responsibilities of MPAC and explained the process of property assessment in Ontario. It was noted that Province-wide property assessment updates are undertaken on a 4 year cycle and this year begins the start of the next cycle, based on a January 1, 2012 valuation date, for phase-in over taxation years 2013 to 2016. Assessment notices will be mailed to all residential property owners in Ontario in September 2012, following which any property owner that does not concur with the assessed value of their home can appeal by filing a Request for Reconsideration by the deadline of March 31st of the taxation year. Councillor Z. Janecki inquired how a property owner may obtain more detailed assessment information than contained in the Assessment Notice. Mr. Hebden referred to MPAC’s online AboutMyProperty data program called , wherein individuals can access property information for up to 100 properties annually and of the 100 properties can create an interest list of up to 24 properties wherein they can obtain more detailed information on those properties. Mayor C. Zehr questioned when global results for the Region of Waterloo and/or Kitchener would be available. Mr. Hebden advised results have not yet been released but anticipated they would be available shortly following which he would arrange to meet with City staff to review the figures. Mayor Zehr inquired what steps MPAC will take to help educate the public as to the difference between assessment and municipal property taxation and if their plans include use of social media.Mr. Hebden advised that he was uncertain if use of social media was planned; however, public presentations are being made in as many municipalities as possible and information is being provided in printed brochures. Mayor Zehr stressed the importance of utilizing all forms of messaging to assist the public in understanding the assessment process to relieve inquiries to the municipalities. Councillor D. Glenn-Graham questioned if MPAC data could be made available on the City’s website. Mr. Hebden suggested that a link be provided from the City’s website to MPAC’s AboutMyProperty website and to their site as well. Councillor Y. Fernandes raised concerns regarding renovations to properties undertaken without obtaining building permits and in particular, those intended to be used for student housing. Mr. D. Chapman asked that members of Council who have concerns of this nature contact staff in the City’s Revenue Division who will assist in further investigation of the matter. Councillor P. Singh questioned if a disclosure statement could be added to the Assessment Notice to assist the public in better understanding of how the percentage increase for Kitchener in assessed values impacts property taxation. Councillor B. Vrbanovic referred to the last round of assessment updates in 2008 at which time the City provided an on-line tool on it’s website that allowed property owners to do a comparison to see the impact, questioning if a similar on-site tool will be available on the Provincial website or again on the City’s website. Ms. J. Evans advised that staff will look at having an on-line tool available and in addition, she suggested that information could be added to the Interim Tax Bills sent out in January 2013. CAO-12-033- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND DOWNTOWN 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE CHANGES The Committee considered Chief Administrator’s Office report CAO-12-033, dated August 1, 2012 regarding proposed changes to the Terms of Reference for the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) and the Downtown Advisory Committee (DAC). Mr. R. Regier advised that the proposed changes are housekeeping in nature, with changes in EDAC’s Terms of Reference to provide more flexibility in recruiting for vacant positions. Mr. C. Bluhm advised that changes in DAC’s Terms of Reference include a change in the Committee’s name to the “Downtown Action and Advisory Committee” and an increase from 2 to 5 residents at large to allow more representation from the general community. The name change reflects the direction the Committee is taking toward becoming both advisory and FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 116 - CITY OF KITCHENER CAO-12-033 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND DOWNTOWN 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE CHANGES (CONT’D) action oriented, with the first portion of their meetings devoted to matters requiring input and advice and the second devoted to initiatives Committee members have an interest in actively participating and volunteering their time (eg. fall festival). Councillor J. Gazzola questioned if it is a necessity to have a member of Council be one of the appointed Co-Chairs or if citizen members of the Committee could fill both Co-Chair positions. He was advised that it is not necessary that one be a member of Council and Mr. Regier suggested that if desired the language could be softened on that point in the Terms of Reference. Councillor Y. Fernandes suggested that if all sector positions cannot be filled they should be opened to citizens at large rather than left vacant. Councillor K. Galloway requested consideration be given to appointing more representation from citizens living outside the downtown to gain input from a differing perspective. Mr. C. Bluhm concurred with these suggestions, advising that these matters could be dealt with through the recruitment process. On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola - it was resolved: “That the revised Terms of Reference for the Economic Development Advisory Committee be approved; and further, That the revised Terms of Reference for the Downtown Advisory Committee, including a name change to Downtown Action and Advisory Committee, be approved.” This meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m. and reconvened at 1:12 p.m., chaired by Councillor S. Davey with all members present. FCS-12-141 - COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND GRANT 6. APPLICATION The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-141, dated August 7, 2012 regarding potential projects to be submitted to the Federal Government for grant funding under the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund (CIIF). Mr. R. Hagey advised that staff reviewed the guidelines for the grant program, together with the 10 year Capital Forecast and other planning documents to compile a priority list of projects for consideration under the grant program. The top 10 are those recommended to go forward and in order to strengthen success of the City’s submission it is recommended that a request for 33% funding be made rather than the maximum of 50%. It was noted that it was intended to forward any recommendation arising from the Committee to the special Council meeting to be held later this same date. Councillors K. Galloway and J. Gazzola expressed an interest in seeing all projects that were considered beyond those being recommended.Mr. D. Chapman agreed to provide a full listing to Council prior to the special Council meeting. Councillor Gazzola raised concerns with respect to the loosely worded criteria for the grant funding. Mr. R. Hagey advised that the weighting factors are not known but the information provided indicates that the CIIF will fund up to a maximum of 50% of any eligible project costs; however, it also makes note that priority may be given to projects requiring a contribution of only 33%. Councillor Gazzola expressed concerns with senior government programs that force increased spending on unplanned municipal projects, advising that he would like to see an adjustment made to the recommendation to provide that only the top 4 projects go forward based on a request for 50% funding rather than 33%. He noted that going in this direction reduces the amount of unplanned spending the City will have to find funding for to meet its portion of project costs. FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 117 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-141 - COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND GRANT 6. APPLICATION (CONT’D) Councillor Z. Janecki questioned the rationale for including the Centennial Stadium Track and Field projects, raising concerns that Council has resolved to demolish the Stadium grandstand and if improvements are made to the track and field it is likely to generate more demand for seating. Mr. Hagey advised that the Director of Enterprise was involved in the review process and had put these projects forward for consideration. He added that removal of the Stadium grandstand would not qualify for funding under the program as it is being demolished rather than improved; whereas, the track and field projects are eligible and are highest on the priority list because they met the majority of the CIIF criteria. Councillor S. Davey reminded also that Council’s resolution provided for portable seating to be brought into the Stadium. Mayor C. Zehr questioned if the recommended projects currently exist within the 10 year Capital Forecast. Mr. Hagey advised that Items 3 to 6 exist in later years within the Forecast and Items 1, 2 and 7 are not currently in the Forecast. Mayor Zehr questioned the risk in making application for the maximum 50% funding. Mr. Hagey advised that staff had made the decision to request 33% funding to improve the likelihood of obtaining funding based on the program information provided. Mayor Zehr questioned if local MPs will have input into the decision making process as was the case under the Infrastructure Stimulus Grant program. Mr. Hagey advised that he was uncertain if that would be the case. Mayor Zehr suggested that if that is the case rationale to request only 33% funding may be a good one as it would provide for monies to be spread farther among the various ridings in the Region. Mayor Zehr referred to demolition of the Centennial Stadium grandstand, stating that at the same time resolution was made for demolition Council received information which verified the need to make improvements to the track and field. He considered the grandstand a separate matter from the track and field. He stated that given the unlikely ability to create partnerships with the local School Boards in the near future to have a track and field facility elsewhere the grant funding would assist in making improvements that will provide time for those discussions with the School Boards to take place. He viewed the two items as a priority under the grant program because they are not currently in the Forecast but in need of improvements; adding that if use of the track and field is returned and life expectancy extended then the City will be ahead of the game. In respect to the issue of the % of funding to request, Mayor Zehr suggested that in the covering letter submitted to the Federal program indication could be given that the City is seeking flexibility in the amount of funding allocated notwithstanding its request for 33% funding, to ensure it receives a fair share of allocations. Mayor Zehr requested clarification of the City’s involvement in the Waterloo Spur Line Multi Use Trail project. Mr. Hagey advised that the CIIF program speaks to partnership projects and this project involves implementing a multi-use trail that would cross over Waterloo and Kitchener borders. The Region will be asking the City to pay a portion of the costs and staff have agreed to bring forward recommendation to endorse the project as a partner submission that may have a cost sharing arrangement. Mayor Zehr questioned if endorsement of this joint project would have an adverse impact on the amount of grant funding received by the City. Mr. Hagey stated that this could be a possibility in that, if an amount is allocated to the Region for the joint project it may have impact on the amount of grant funding received by the City. Councillor B. Vrbanovic commented that overall the amount of grant funding available is limited given it will be spread across the country, suggesting that the intent is to see funding spread over as many Federal ridings as possible. He questioned if there is opportunity to highlight projects being submitted that are located within a Federal riding. Mr. Hagey advised that the application does ask for location and an indication that a project is within a Federal riding could be added to the application. Councillor Vrbanovic questioned if it is known if any other community organization will be applying to receive grant funding that may seek support from the City. Mr. Hagey advised that the only other known entity is the Centre in the Square who may potentially submit projects but the City would only be involved if the project seeks to make improvements to the City’s building structure. Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned the impact to existing projects in the Forecast if those recommended are moving up in the Forecast. Mr. Hagey reiterated that Items 3 to 6 are those already included in the Forecast, accelerating from 2014 to 2013 and it is proposed that the City’s portion of costs will be funded from the General Parks Provision account. Councillor FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 118 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-141 - COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND GRANT 6. APPLICATION (CONT’D) Fernandes questioned how selection is made for playground replacements and Mr. D. Ritz advised that an annual review and prioritization for replacement is completed by staff, with 3 to 4 structures replaced each year. Those replaced are typically at a 30 year life cycle and those being recommended for grant funding are the structures identified as the highest priority for replacement. Councillor Fernandes raised concerns that grant funding will be consumed by the need to hire more consultants to complete the work and therefore, the City may not benefit any more in doing the work ahead of it being done in-house in 2014. Mr. Hagey advised that the top 2 items are those that would not be done in-house, requiring hiring of a consultant in any event. He suggested that there is no significant risk in spending more on consultants through this program. Councillors F. Etherington and D. Glenn-Graham expressed concerns as to the timing of announcement of the Federal grant program and the short timeframe for Council to consider the matter. It was suggested that given the summer break consideration could have been given to calling a special meeting to provide more opportunity to consider this matter. Councillor P. Singh requested clarification that there is no impact to the 2013 tax base in bringing forward the 4 projects existing in the Forecast. Mr. Hagey concurred advising that if successful, the City’s share is intended to be paid from existing accounts and/or reserve funds. Councillor Singh commented that monies would eventually be spent on these projects in any event and if supplemented by grant funding the City will be in a better position. In regard to the Centennial Stadium field project he questioned the life cycle of synthetic turf versus natural field and where in the forecast re-turfing is planned. Mr. G. Hummel advised that there is no specific capital budget for the project but rather there is an ongoing annual maintenance account of $30,000. He added that typically a synthetic turf yields 2700-3000 hours of usage versus approximately 1200 hours for a natural field, providing opportunity for increased revenues to the City. Councillor S. Davey questioned the risk of not receiving any grant funding if all 7 projects were submitted at a request of 50% funding. Mr. Hagey was not certain given the lack of more detailed information on criteria but suggested the number of projects approved likely would be reduced. A motion by Councillor J. Gazzola the staff recommendation contained in report FCS-12-141 was brought forward for consideration, as modified to provide that only Items 1 to 4 as listed be submitted under the CIIF based on a request for 50% CIIF funding. Councillor Gazzola commented that criteria under Federal incentive programs typically seek submission of unplanned projects for which the City automatically has to find monies to do. He stated that if only the top 4 projects proceed at a request of 50% funding and are successful, then the City will only have to find approximately $2M instead of $3.7M. He added that this still allows the City to take advantage of the program and have less of an immediate financial burden. Mr. D. Chapman requested clarification in respect to the partnership project with the Region of Waterloo as to whether the intent is to endorse the project on the basis of a request for 50% funding or 33%. Councillor Gazzola responded that he wished the partnership program to remain at a request for 33% funding. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that although he was not comfortable with the proposed 50% funding request he could support the motion provided an amendment was accepted to include all of the 7 projects to ensure program administrators have more options to consider for potential funding allocation. Councillor Gazzola advised he would not accept the suggestion as a friendly amendment reiterating that his intent is to have the City’s funding portion as low as possible and therefore, he wished to maintain narrowing of the list to the top 4 projects. In response to Councillor Z. Janecki, Mr. Hagey advised that if no application for grant funding is made the projects will still come back through the budget process in 2013 or beyond and will in that case be fully funded by the City rather than having financial assistance from Federal grant funding. Councillor Fernandes raised concerns with the impact to the tax base if all projects are successful. Mr. Hagey advised that if all projects were funded through the tax FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 119 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-141 - COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND GRANT 6. APPLICATION (CONT’D) base it would equate to 2.2% but pointed out that if all are successful, the intent is to fund projects through existing reserves making it possible to still achieve no impact to the tax base. Councillor B. Ioannidis questioned the feasibility of only proceeding with a portion of the projects if all are approved.Mr. Hagey suggested that could be a possibility in that, the City could chose not to proceed with a specific project and program administrators would then have the right to pull back the grant funding allotted to the project.Mr. D. Chapman added that the City will be required to enter into funding agreements under the program and where no agreement is entered into no funds would be forthcoming. Councillor Ioannidis expressed support for submitting as many projects to strengthen the possibility of successfully obtaining funding. Councillor Singh commented that it is the City’s responsibility to undertake these improvements in any event and the grant funding provides ability to have assistance and meet those responsibilities. Councillor K. Galloway commented that the likelihood of all projects being approved is minimal but maintained the importance of submitting all 7 projects to provide the program administrators with choice in which to make their determinations. She added that this is an opportunity to make investment in the community without increasing taxation. Mayor Zehr agreed that all projects should be submitted to provide more option given the total of grant funding will be spread across the country and the program is likely to be over- subscribed. He expressed concerns with requesting 50% funding, maintaining a request for 33% funding is likely to better the City’s chances of being successful. Councillor F. Etherington stated that he was uncomfortable with the whole process in that, it is unknown what the City’s allocation might be and where the City’s portion will come from; adding that he did not disagree with the projects chosen and was of the opinion it would make no difference regardless of whether 33% or 50% funding is requested. A motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic to amend the main motion to provide that all 7 projects be Carried submitted for consideration of CIIF funding, was voted on and on a recorded vote, with Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors D. Glenn-Graham, B. Ioannidis, S. Davey, K. Galloway, B. Vrbanovic, F. Etherington and P. Singh voting in favour; and Councillors J. Gazzola, Z. Janecki and Y. Fernandes voting in opposition. A motion by Mayor C. Zehr to amend the main motion to provide that all projects submitted be Lost based on a request for 33% CIIF funding, was voted on and on a recorded vote, with Mayor C. Zehr voting in favour; and Councillors J. Gazzola, D. Glenn-Graham, B. Ioannidis, Z. Janecki, Y. Fernandes, S. Davey, K. Galloway, B. Vrbanovic, F. Etherington and Paul Singh voting in opposition. Carried The following motion was then voted on and on a recorded vote, with Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors D. Glenn-Graham, B. Ioannidis, Z. Janecki, Y. Fernandes, S. Davey, K. Galloway, B. Vrbanovic, F. Etherington and P. Singh voting in favour; and Councillor J. Gazzola voting in opposition. On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola - it was resolved: “That the following project applications be approved to be submitted in priority sequence for consideration under the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund (CIIF) based on a request for 50% CIIF funding: 1. Centennial Stadium Track; 2. Centennial Stadium Field; 3. Asphalt Surfacing for Primary Trails; 4. Upgrades to Trail System; FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 120 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-141 - COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND GRANT 6. APPLICATION (CONT’D) 5. Playstructure Replacements; 6. Knollwood Park Rehabilitation Project; 7. Victoria Park Washrooms; and, That the Waterloo Spur Line Multi Use Trail be endorsed by the City of Kitchener as a partner submission to be made by the Region of Waterloo based on a request for 33% CIIF funding; and further, That the Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Services be authorized to sign any Landlord Authorization forms for submissions made by other organizations to improve City facilities.” The recommendation of the Committee concerning this matter was forwarded for consideration to the special Council meeting held later this same date. FCS-12-131 - 2013 BUDGET - POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS 7. The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-131, dated July 19, 2012 regarding prioritization of service areas that will form the focus of staff’s review in determining options for potential budget reductions for the purpose of reducing the 2013 budget submission target of 2.87% by an additional 1%. Mr. D. Chapman presented background information and an overview of the budget process, noting that the intent this date is about bringing focus to staff’s work in preparing potential reduction options for Council’s consideration in the fall. The 2012 tax supported budget was organized into service areas and Council was asked prior to this meeting to identify their top 10 priority areas for review. Mr. R. Hagey presented the results of a citizen survey on the budget, as well as the results of Council’s exercise in identifying their top 10 priority service areas for review. In a Region-wide survey conducted by The Survey Research Centre at the University of Waterloo, 175 Kitchener residents were asked additional questions related specifically to Kitchener’s taxation and service levels for the purpose of better informing Council’s discussions around the 2013 budget and the potential for service level reductions. It was noted that survey respondents indicated a strong preference toward an inflationary style tax increase to maintain existing services and supports the approach being taken to develop the 2013 budget. Council’s highest priorities for review equate to $41M or approximately 30% of the total tax supported expenses with a 1% reduction equating to approximately $1M or 2.5% impact to each service identified. The service areas identified as the highest priority for review include: CAO Administration; Market; Information Technology; Human Resources; Operations Admin Support; Centre In The Square; Capital out of Current; Legal Services; Fire Suppression; and Community Centres (FM). In addition to service areas, Council identified various cost types as areas of interest including: conference costs (Staff and Council); salary freeze (Management and Council); overtime / absenteeism / lost time claims; and Council home technology costs. The intent of the proposed recommendation is that staff will give consideration to the priorities as directed by Council but will not be limited to those chosen, in that, staff may develop options in other areas where in some instances priorities are determined to be infeasible or better opportunities exist elsewhere. Councillor S. Davey advised that the intent this date was to go through the ranked priorities and raise any other service areas of interest not identified in the list. Concerns were raised with respect to the survey conducted and in particular, whether the number of respondents represents a true reflection of the community.Mr. Hagey advised that The Survey Research Centre indicates that the number of respondents reasonably well represents the Region and pointed out that Kitchener citizens were not the only group of respondents. Concerns were also raised in respect to the priority service areas identified being broad in context and the difficulty of determining support for them without knowing what specific items from within will be considered. The Committee was reminded that the intent today is to direct focus to those service areas considered a priority for review and the specific items within those service areas FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 121 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-131 - 2013 BUDGET - POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS (CONT’D) 7. will be further investigated and recommendations brought forward by staff for consideration during budget deliberations in the fall. Councillor J. Gazzola stated that he would prefer to see reduction options equating to a larger percentage and would like to establish whether there should be a 1% or 2% reduction solution. Mr. D. Chapman pointed out that Council has already dealt with this matter having passed a resolution to provide for a 1% reduction list. He noted that the Consumer Price Index at 2% is in range with the budget submission target and with the cut list the tax rate will lower to below CPI. He stated that staff is comfortable with the existing resolution and suggested that it would be premature at this time to change direction. Following further discussion it was agreed that the 10 service areas identified as a priority for review, and the other cost types identified, be accepted as a consensus list and members speak only to any other service areas of interest they would like to see added. Councillor D. Glenn-Graham commented that in past budget discussions not all proposed reductions were agreed to and suggested there is value in staff finding other opportunities for potential reductions to maximize options. He suggested that staff should look at those items that closely ranked behind the top 10 as well. Councillor P. Singh commented that asking for a 1% reduction list has merit but he would like to see options having the least and/or no impact to services. Councillor J. Gazzola stated that he could not support a tax rate increase above the rate of inflation, expressing the opinion that all service areas should be looked at and somehow wages be looked at generally as well, as they equate to a majority of all expenses. Councillor Z. Janecki raised concerns that a 1% reduction in each category may not be achieved as Council could decide on higher reductions in one area over another. Mr. Chapman advised that this is in fact staff’s intent, noting that notwithstanding a 1% reduction is equal to a $1M reduction in each of the priority service areas, items proposed for reduction may include others than those currently on the list for review and ultimately reductions approved may not equate to 1% across the board. Councillor Y. Fernandes commented that the 1% reduction is a good starting point and suggested that Council begin to give thought to how reserve funds might also be used to reduce the tax rate increase. Councillor S. Davey questioned if the budget submission target as it stands now provides for built in inflationary increases across the board. Mr. D. Chapman advised that other than mandatory areas such as salaries and Utilities increases, no other inflationary increases have been allowed. He pointed out that there is no room in the budget to do so and be able to meet staff’s commitment to reduce the original projected tax rate increase by 3%. Councillor K. Galloway requested, and it was agreed, that those items ranked as priorities 12 to 18 also be included for review to provide more options and to allow that those items close to the top 10 may have in fact been a number one priority for some members of Council based on how the items were ranked. Councillor B. Vrbanovic requested that staff look at options where dollars can be saved through better use of technology and look at areas where Kitchener did not compare favourably with other cities in respect to benchmarking. He asked that staff also consider other options where dollars could be saved in operation of the Market beyond that selected as part of the top 10. In respect to Protection Services, he stated that he would be willing to look at any options that would gain efficiencies but which would not in any way jeopardize public safety. Councillor Vrbanovic requested, and it was agreed, that Item 14 (Alarm Monitoring) be added to the list of priority service areas to consider the potential to generate new revenues and how better to market the City’s service. FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 122 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-131 - 2013 BUDGET - POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS (CONT’D) 7. Councillor F. Etherington commented that he was pleased with this process as it gives responsibility back to Council to decide the service areas to be considered for reductions and agreed that more than the 10 priorities listed should be considered. Councillor P. Singh requested, and it was agreed, that Items 62 (Winter Maintenance - Sidewalks) and 23 (Special Events) be added to the list of priority service areas for review. In reference to use of reserve funds, Mayor C. Zehr reminded that Council passed a new reserve fund policy in June 2012 for oversight of reserve funds. Mayor Zehr questioned the feasibility of obtaining benchmarking statistics from the Province to see how Kitchener compares with other cities in respect to municipal expenses. Mr. Hagey advised that it would not be possible to obtain statistics for all expense categories but statistics could be made available for such items as road maintenance. Mayor Zehr requested that staff compile a summary of those items for which statistics are readily available. Councillor Davey inquired as to the timing for staff’s itemized list of potential reductions to come back to Council for consideration. Mr. R. Hagey advised that preliminary information will be brought back to the November 5, 2012 Committee meeting, with more detail to follow on th December 6 at which time Council will consider the 2013 Operating Budget; and final budget deliberations will be held at a date to be determined in January 2014. A motion by Councillor K. Galloway was brought forward to direct staff to prepare potential budget reduction issue papers to be presented as part of the 2013 budget process, having consideration for the priority service areas and cost types as identified this date. Councillor Gazzola advised that he would not support the motion as it was his desire to see a higher reduction beyond $1M, suggesting a reduction of at least $1.5M should be sought. On motion by Councillor K. Galloway - it was resolved: “That staff be directed to prepare potential budget reduction issue papers to be presented as part of the 2013 budget process, with consideration being given to the following priority service areas and cost types: a)# PRIORITY SERVICE AREAS 97CAO ADMINISTRATION 6MARKET 76INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 79HUMAN RESOURCES 107OPERATIONS ADMIN SUPPORT 48CENTRE IN THE SQUARE 111CAPITAL OUT OF CURRENT 94LEGAL 8FIRE SUPPRESSION 42COMMUNITY CENTRES (FM) 9FIRE ADMINISTRATION 90LS ADMIN 99FCS ADMIN 2DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT 52WINTER MAINTENANCE – ROADS 110GRANTS 88MAYOR AND COUNCIL FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 123 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-131 - 2013 BUDGET - POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS (CONT’D) 7. 14ALARM MONITORING 62WINTER MAINTENANCE – SIDEWALKS 23SPECIAL EVENTS ; and, b)COST TYPES Conference Costs (Staff and Council) Salary Freeze (Management and Council) Overtime /Absenteeism /Lost Time Claims Council Home Technology Costs “ FCS-12-138 - 2013 BUDGET - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 8. The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-138, dated July 26, 2012 regarding methods to engage the public in budget discussions. Mr. R. Hagey advised that staff is seeking direction to implement additional public engagement processes, beyond those currently in use, that would include:an interactive budget website with frequently asked questions, tax rate increase scenario calculator and potential reduction options voting tool; and a social media event enabling citizens to contact staff directly to ask questions and comment on the 2013 budget. Councillor D. Glenn-Graham commented that the proposed methods put the City on the right track in terms of transparency and communication with the public. He asked that City facilities, such as the Library and Community Centres, that have access to computers, and as well, the Corporate Contact Centre, be educated to respond to inquiries from the public on budget related matters. Councillor Y. Fernandes raised concerns with respect to staff’s consideration of implementing a citizen advisory board to participate in the budget process. She acknowledged concerns regarding the significant amount of staff time required to oversee such a board but had concerns that if postponed again it would not be until 2014 before it could be looked at again. Councillor Davey pointed out that it is not being suggested it be postponed but rather staff’s recommendation is not to implement a citizen advisory board in 2013. Mr. Hagey added that a public survey on the budget has already been completed; therefore, it is proposed to proceed with an interactive website and social media event rather than implement a citizen advisory board in 2013. Councillor Fernandes questioned if there would be any more support in 2014, suggesting that if implemented now, while it may not be a full board for 2013, those appointed could still attend meetings and provide comments. She questioned why not make more of a formal group now that could lay ground work for future years. Mr. Hagey pointed out that there is nothing that precludes interested citizens from attending budget meetings and the concern is that dependent on the composition it may lead to comments that are not representative of the community at large. Councillor Fernandes suggested that such a group may have expertise of their own that could provide another lens from a broader spectrum. Mr. D. Chapman acknowledged that while the points made are valid, there was no consensus reached from staff’s consideration, adding that staff looked at the issue based on a particular model and have been transparent in how the decision was arrived at. He stated that staff will look to Council’s direction in the matter. Councillor Fernandes stated that she would like to see a call put out for a group that could initially form a less formal board and who want to participate in the budget process. She suggested that the group consist of approximately 6 members who could work with staff and form a better understanding of the budget process. Subsequently, if it is then desired in 2014 to formalize a citizen advisory board some steps will already be in place. Councillor P. Singh spoke in support of the options recommended by staff as valuable tools to support public engagement but expressed doubt that a citizen advisory board would truly reflect opinions of the community at large. He stated that Council has been elected to make FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 124 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-138 - 2013 BUDGET - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (CONT’D) 8. decisions on the direction of the City and preferred implementation of more engaging tools to garner public comment. Mayor C. Zehr supported the approach recommended by staff, including their recommendation not to proceed with a citizen advisory board. He stated that citizens have had many opportunities in past budget deliberations to participate in public meetings and give their input. He commented that a group of 10, particularly if invited rather than selected randomly, would not be reflective of the opinions of the community. Mayor Zehr questioned how members of Council who expressed concerns in accepting the opinions of the 175 respondents to the survey, which were randomly selected, could then accept the opinions of a group of only 10. He agreed that Council has been elected to make the tough decisions but not in isolation of public input and was of the opinion the public engagement process as recommended provides Council with that kind of input. Councillor J. Gazzola spoke in support of staff’s recommendation, suggesting that as part of the interactive website information be provided to alert citizens that there could be changes to their property taxes resulting from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s re- assessment process. Councillor Gazzola commented that he was uncertain where he stood on the issue of a citizen advisory board, suggesting that more discussion is needed and that it would not likely be feasible to implement within this term of Council but could be something to consider over the next 2 years for the next term of Council. Councillor Z. Janecki noted that he had participated in a citizen advisory board approximately 10 years ago at which time interactive websites and social media venues were not an option. He expressed support for the options proposed by staff, agreeing that a board is not the right way to go given the small number of participants. He stated that those citizens having a strong interest in the budget process can participate in the various methods of public engagement as proposed. A motion by Councillor Y. Fernandes was brought forward for consideration to put out a call for residents interested in the budget process at the same time as Council’s annual appointments to Committee and Boards and the appointed group meet with staff to receive information on the budget and offer their input as part of budget deliberations. Councillor B. Vrbanovic spoke in support of staff’s recommendation, commenting that it is important to engage the public in as many ways as possible and asked that staff focus on interaction through the interactive website as much as possible so information is shared in a transparent way and input gathered through dialogue directly with citizens of the community. He stated that it is important that public input be obtained in a meaningful way and expressed the view that a citizen advisory board would give a small, select group ability to have an inordinate influence over and above the broader community. Councillor F. Etherington expressed the view that Council has been elected to undertake the budget process and was not supportive of extending responsibility to another group, especially in light of the work that would be involved for staff. Lost Councillor Fernandes’ motion was then voted by a recorded vote and , with Councillor Y. Fernandes voting in favour; and Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Gazzola, D. Glenn-Graham, B. Ioannidis, Z. Janecki, S. Davey, K. Galloway, B. Vrbanovic, F. Etherington and P. Singh voting in opposition. Carried Unanimously. The following motion was On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola - it was resolved: “That in addition to public engagement methods already employed, namely: holding all budget meetings in an open and public format, receiving public feedback through mail, phone, email, Facebook and Twitter, soliciting representative citizen input through a 2013 budget survey, publishing content in Your Kitchener, and holding a dedicated public delegation forum where individuals may address council directly, staff be directed FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 2012 - 125 - CITY OF KITCHENER FCS-12-138 - 2013 BUDGET - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (CONT’D) 8. to implement the following additional public engagement processes as part of the 2013 budget process: • an interactive budget website including content such as frequently asked questions, a tax rate increase scenario calculator, and potential reduction options voting tool; • a social media event whereby citizens can contact staff directly regarding the 2013 budget to ask questions and make comments; and further, That staff be directed to report back to Council on citizen feedback received through these channels throughout the course of the 2013 budget process.” ADJOURNMENT 9. On motion, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. J. Billett, AMCT Committee Administrator