HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-10FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 CITY OF KITCHENER
The Finance and Corporate Services Committee met this date commencing at 10:05 a.m.
Present: Councillor S. Davey - Chair
Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Gazzola, B. Vrbanovic, Y. Fernandes, K. Galloway, P.
Singh, B. Ioannidis, Z. Janecki, F. Etherington and D. Glenn-Graham.
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
R. Gosse, Director, Legislated Services & City Clerk
L. Johnston, Director Corporate Communications & Marketing
R. Bunn, Executive Director, Integrated Planning
M. Grummet, Director, Project Integration & Coordination
H. Gross, Director, Asset Management
W. Malcolm, Director of Utilities
R. Rieger, Executive Director of Economic Development
R. Hagey, Director, Financial Planning
T. Beckett, Fire Chief
L. Murphy, Manager, Customer Services
C. Musselman, Senior Environmental Planner
P. Harris, Manager of Licensing
J. Billett, Committee Administrator
CSD-12-122 - 2013 APPOINTMENTS TO THE GRAND RIVER ACCESSIBILITY
1.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GRAAC)
The Committee considered Community Services Department report CSD-12-122, dated
November 23, 2012 recommending appointments for 2013 to the GRAAC.
On motion by Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock -
it was resolved:
“That the following applicants be appointed to the Grand River Accessibility Advisory
Committee (GRAAC) for a 3-year term ending December 31st, 2015, pending
ratification by the partnering municipalities of the City of Waterloo, Region of Waterloo,
Township of North Dumfries, Township of Wellesley and Township of Woolwich:
Greg Moore City of Kitchener New
Keri Cameron City of Kitchener New
”
CAO-12-044 - INTEGRATED PLANNING CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
2.
- 2013 BUSINESS PLANNING PRIORITIES
The Committee considered Chief Administrator’s Office report CAO-12-044,dated December
3, 2012 concerning the draft 2013 business planning priorities by Department/Divisions, and
including information on known activities planned for 2014 and 2015.
Ms. R. Bunn presented an overview of the 2013 Business Planning Priorities for each
Department / Division, with the objective of obtaining approval in principle to allow staff to
move forward with their Business Plans. Ms. Bunn outlined the framework used which focuses
on aligning the City’s strategic goals and community priorities with departmental deliverables
and noted key Corporate projects (ie. those involving cross-departmental resources) as they
relate to each of the 6 categories of the City’s Strategic Plan, together with project timelines.
She noted a total of 24 Corporate projects as prioritized by the Corporate Leadership Team
(CLT), in addition to those being carried over from 2012. Ms. Bunn circulated this date a copy
of the scoring criteria used for ranking projects, as well as a comprehensive list of Corporate
projects in order of ranking. It was noted that staff will be seeking final approval of the 2013
Business Planning Priorities on final budget day, to be followed by an update on Business
Planning in March 2013 and over the coming year the Integrated Planning Centre of
Excellence will be undertaking review of all core services and resourcing.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 206 - CITY OF KITCHENER
CAO-12-044 - INTEGRATED PLANNING CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
2.
- 2013 BUSINESS PLANNING PRIORITIES (CONT’D)
Ms. J. Murphy presented an update on the Corporate Customer Service Strategy, providing
background on Phase 1 leading to consideration of what will be needed as part of Phase 2. It
was noted that the scope of Phase 2 needs to be defined prior to commencing detailed work to
ensure this phase remains focused on high priority areas that respond to citizen needs,
ensures resources are used effectively and prioritizes the work and its sequence over the next
12 to 24 months. A report will be presented in early 2013 with recommendations as to the
scope of Phase 2 and will seek input and approval from Council prior to commencement of the
work.
Councillor D. Glenn-Graham questioned how high priority areas for citizen response needs will
be determined. Ms. Murphy advised that staff will engage Council in respect to their views on
priorities, as well as, review statistics from calls tracked at the Corporate Contact Centre
(CCC). She added that staff will look at technology to enable enhanced statistical reporting
and discussions are had daily with CCC staff on the kinds of calls received in terms of services
the public has expressed an interest in but which the City is not yet able to offer, such as ability
to pay for a parking ticket on-line. Mr. M. May added that one of the weaknesses of the current
system is inability to collect accurate data for reporting and it is intended that Phase 2 will look
beyond the CCC to such things as provision of e-services at all facilities. He added that
currently the public can pay parking tickets on-line but are having difficulties in finding it on the
City’s website. Ms. Murphy subsequently further clarified that the issue regarding paying
parking tickets on-line relates to the fact that payments cannot be made by credit card and the
customer is therefore not receiving any verification of payment.
Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned the status of the Region of Waterloo partnering in the
City’s CCC. Ms. J. Murphy advised that the Regional staff involved are just moving into the
CCC and unlike what was initially envisioned, they are operating separately but City staff hope
to find some common ground on overnight coverage if the CCC returns to a 24/7 operation.
She advised that discussions are ongoing with Regional management staff and they have
indicated they would be open to discussions on that level. Councillor Fernandes raised
concerns with the multi-lingual strategy not yet being completed. Ms. Murphy advised that staff
is monitoring need for language interpreters closely; however, they have found on average that
they have been able to handle same using in-house staff who have a second language and
are able to interpret. She added that this will be reviewed as part of Phase 2 given that once
the x2345 number is rolled out there may be an increased need for interpreter services.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic inquired if all Departments are using the existing CMR system for
tracking and reporting purposes. Ms. Murphy advised that this is not being used Corporate-
wide, noting that By-law Enforcement is the primary user and that staff needs to assess if this
is in fact, the right product for the City. Councillor Vrbanovic questioned if it would be better to
get all other Departments involved and conditioned to the existing system or if it would be best
to wait until a decision is made on a new system that might also include the partnership with
Regional staff. Ms. Murphy advised that the existing system is not the kind that can serve
Corporately and to determine an appropriate system there is need to review all business
processes which will be a long, involved project. She added that it is intended as part of Phase
2 to scope out what needs to be done to make a determination on the right product. Councillor
Vrbanovic expressed desire to see implementation of e-services done more quickly. Mr. M.
May stated that e-services is a good example as to why time needs to be taken to consider the
methodology and process mapping for change, which will come back as part of the Phase 2
plan.
Councillor J. Gazzola requested further clarification of the need for translation services. Ms.
Murphy advised that there is opportunity to use a common service through telephone contract
with a company out of San Francisco, USA who translate in all languages but reiterated that
currently use of City staff with second languages is working for the CCC. She added that the
percentage of calls coming in requiring a translator are minimal and while not a huge issue, the
intent in pursuing translation services is to enhance service levels. Mr. J. Willmer
acknowledged that the gap is not huge and there is a strong network of staff that can provide
translations but noted that by not providing a translation service the City may be excluding a
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 207 - CITY OF KITCHENER
CAO-12-044 - INTEGRATED PLANNING CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
2.
- 2013 BUSINESS PLANNING PRIORITIES (CONT’D)
portion of the community. Councillor Gazzola expressed concerns that the City is attempting
to be all things to all people and going overboard may not be the right way to go. Mr. Willmer
stated that this is why the report is coming today, noting that Council governs by providing
direction at the strategic level, while staff’s responsibility is on the operational side. He advised
that staff is providing this information as the context for laying out core service priorities and
the foundation for focus on those priorities in 2013. He added that Council has influence over
project priorities and the budget for 2013, and one of the fundamental questions will be
whether or not to enhance services.
Councillor Z. Janecki questioned how the 311 number proposed by the Region of Waterloo
relates to use of the x2345 number. Ms. Murphy advised that the Region is not yet using the
311 system and have not yet made a decision to go that route but rather have opted at this
time to partner with the City’s CCC.
The Committee then focused on questions related to the 2013 Business Planning Priorities.
Councillor B. Ioannidis questioned if the list of projects provided have been ranked in order of
priority. Ms. Bunn advised that the list provided includes priority of projects under Ranks 1
through 4, so all projects under Rank 1 are considered a high priority and the intent of today’s
discussion is to determine if those listed are appropriately ranked.
Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned that if approved today, are projects as ranked locked in or
can an unexpected project bump another if deemed urgent. Ms. Bunn advised that there is a
process for reprioritizing if needed, noting that the list of priorities would be revisited and if a
new project is deemed of more importance, others may be placed on hold and/or delayed for a
period of time to fit it in. Councillor Fernandes questioned how independent interests of
members of Council are addressed. Ms. Bunn commented that Ward issues would be raised
at Council and if directed by Council, staff would revisit the list and reprioritize as needed.
Councillor Fernandes raised concerns that Councillor’s personal agendas may be allowed to
be added in which are not to the benefit of the whole of the community. Mr. J. Willmer advised
that individual agendas are not driving the business planning process and pointed out that the
appropriate manner for Councillors to draw attention and have resources assigned to individual
matters of concern is through the Standing Committee and Council public process. He stated
that Council has the authority to give direction to staff to divert attention to other matters and if
the particular matter reaches across Departmental resources it may have implications to the
business planning priorities previously set in place.
In response to further questions from Councillor Fernandes, Mr. Willmer advised that the
projects listed under Rank 1 are all considered first priorities and the objective today is to
determine if there are any of those that Council does not consider a priority and should be
removed. Councillor Fernandes questioned what happens to projects not on the list that staff is
working on now. Ms. Bunn advised that these are either projects that do not cross
Departmental boundaries or are not resource intensive such that they are packaged and
managed under the Divisional work plans.
Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock questioned what staff envision for the Integrated Planning
Centre for Excellence in the long term. Ms. Bunn advised that she has been seconded to the
end of 2014 at which time a decision will have to be made as to how items that need to
continue forward will be managed and how business plans will be reviewed. She stated that
she did not know for certain what that will look like but anticipated that a report would come
forward at a point in future for Council’s consideration. Councillor Galloway-Sealock
questioned if it is intended to do all projects under Rank 1 and what if any, projects did not
make the list at all. Ms. Bunn advised that no projects were removed during the ranking review
process but rather some have been moved into 2014.
Councillor Galloway-Sealock referred to Council approved direction to staff to undertake a
review of City-wide on-street parking policies which is not on the list. Mr. M. May advised that
this is not seen as a Corporate project but rather is a Divisional priority and staff will look at
same within the context of there overall work plan. Councillor Galloway-Sealock also
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 208 - CITY OF KITCHENER
CAO-12-044 - INTEGRATED PLANNING CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
2.
- 2013 BUSINESS PLANNING PRIORITIES (CONT’D)
questioned who the appropriate staff would be to take the lead to work along side Compass
Kitchener on the issue of voter turn-out. Mr. D. Chapman advised that Compass Kitchener has
been charged with investigating and reporting back on this issue, the work of which they have
already begun. Mr. J. Willmer added that Compass Kitchener will engage appropriate staff
and/or stakeholders in the process of their investigations. Mr. Chapman suggested that
wording could be included in Legislated Services Divisional work plan to provide that
appropriate staff will liaise with Compass Kitchener to the extent that actions may have an
impact on planning for municipal elections.
Councillor J. Gazzola questioned the costs of the Integrated Planning Centre for Excellence
program and anticipated benefits. Ms. Bunn advised that the Centre was established in
February 2012 and has 4 staff in total encompassing areas of Strategic Planning, Business
Planning, Portfolio/Project Management, Risk Management, Performance Management, and
Measurement and Reporting. Mr. Willmer advised that actual costs of the program are
unknown at this time; however, he suggested that this is work the City cannot afford not to do
given staff resources are tight and there is need to plan ahead to ensure provision of resources
and/or to reassess priorities which may determine a project cannot be accommodated because
a key resource component is not available. He further suggested that the program is not
costing any more given reallocation of existing staff resources to do the work involved.
Councillor Z. Janecki questioned why review of the City’s Official Plan is not listed. Ms. Bunn
advised that the project is listed within Planning’s Divisional work plan and does not require
resources from across the Corporation. Councillor S. Davey added that this is also not on the
list as it is work required to be done under legislation and therefore, is not a project that can be
removed.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic questioned if those projects listed have already been indicated as a
priority by Council for which direction has been given to staff to investigate. Mr. Willmer
advised that was correct, noting the list contains 6 new priorities of Council in 2013 and the
balance are projects carrying over from 2012. Councillor Vrbanovic questioned if the list is
representative of staff’s opinion on how the work can best be prioritized over 2013-2014 and
Mr. Willmer stated that was correct. Councillor Vrbanovic referred to the Open Data
Framework project under Rank 2, questioning the rationale for its ranking. Ms. Bunn advised
that its ranking does not preclude ability to undertake discussions with the University of
Waterloo, noting that time is needed to develop a plan that ensures the City is taking the
project in the right direction and is sustainable. She noted that it is part of IT’s 2013 work plan
but has ranked second in relevance to those projects ranked as number one priorities.
Councillor Vrbanovic also referred to creation of an Office of Sustainability under the Office of
Mayor and Council, requesting an update on the status of this initiative and the feasibility of
this being completed in 2014.
In response to Mayor C. Zehr, Fire Chief T. Beckett provided additional detail on the 5 Year
Master Fire Plan project under Rank 2 listings. Mayor Zehr commented that it is important to
keep in mind the projects as listed are Corporate projects versus Divisional and are being done
in their own right, which takes co-ordination and is the reason they are being dealt with in this
way. He stated that this is a methodical approach that avoids the syndrome of “flavour of the
month” projects and Council has been aware of this approach for some time as it has been
noted in the CAO’s performance reviews for more than a year.
Councillor P. Singh referred to the Corporate Sponsorship Policy project under Rank 2 listings,
questioning the rationale for a lower ranking. Mr. M. May advised that when compared to other
legislated projects, particularly those dealing with public safety, this project did not rank as high
but will be part of the Community Services Divisional work plan in 2013.
Councillor D. Glenn-Graham referred to the Brand Strategy questioning the rationale for its
ranking under Rank 2 listings. Mr. R. Regier acknowledged this is an important project
notwithstanding its ranking; however, it did not meet criteria for a number one ranking. He
stated that this will not only encompass evolution of the City’s brand but also its relationship to
the Regional brand and requires a co-ordinated approach with stakeholders outside municipal
government as well.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 209 - CITY OF KITCHENER
CAO-12-044 - INTEGRATED PLANNING CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
2.
- 2013 BUSINESS PLANNING PRIORITIES (CONT’D)
A motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic was brought forward to endorse the 2013 Business
Planning Priorities as presented.
Councillor Y. Fernandes commented that the Leisure Facilities Master Plan ties in with a
number of projects that in her opinion should be done before the start of any others, such as
the South District Park, Sponsorship policy and Budd Park. She questioned if they could all be
done in one year, or would it take longer and/or are all to be done simultaneously. Ms. Bunn
advised that staff will be returning in the new year with more details on timing and some
projects may run concurrently while others will be done independently. Councillor Fernandes
questioned if Council will see something that identifies other issues that may arise from
projects in progress. Ms. Bunn advised that staff will be providing further information much like
a road map, noting this is part of the advantage of having all project information in one place
so that staff can look at all projects and develop a Corporate plan with timing that ensures a
project is not starting prematurely if dependent on another. Councillor Fernandes questioned
the feasibility of including indication as to how much is to be budgeted for each project. Ms.
Bunn advised that this information will be included at a point in future but staff is not at that
point now. Councillor Fernandes raised concerns that priorities are being decided upon the
same day Council will be deliberating the final 2013 budget. Councillor S. Davey commented
that the bulk of discussion is intended to take place at this meeting, with any differences of
opinion to be noted and options tabled today so final discussions should not take a lot of time
on budget day. Councillor Fernandes questioned the feasibility of obtaining clear
understanding of where priorities are going and the costing prior to final budget day. Mr. J.
Willmer advised that items under Rank 1 are all items Council has seen previously and there
will be no surprises on final budget day as all items under Ranks 1 and 2 have been identified
in the 2013 budget materials.
Mayor C. Zehr concurred that costs for these projects can be found in the budget materials
provided and to compile same into the business planning document would be too onerous.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic added that undertaking Corporate business planning is necessary and
he could not remember a time when citizens could obtain such a comprehensive picture of
main priorities. He suggested that this is a good mechanism for staff to provide Council with an
overview of Corporate priorities and similarly be used by Council to inform the community.
Councillor Glenn-Graham agreed the document should be shared with the public and through
quarterly reviews priorities can be revisited and improved upon in changing circumstances.
Councillor Fernandes reiterated projects she had noted earlier, questioning how these may be
moved in the rankings. Mr. Willmer advised that the Leisure Facilities Master Plan is layed out
to ensure priorities take into account other related projects and is the reason all are slated in
2013. He stated that no one project will be done ahead as the intent is to take a co-ordinated
approach with advancement of each component done in time to inform the others.
Carried
The following motion was voted on by a recorded vote and , with Mayor C. Zehr and
Councillors D. Glenn-Graham, B. Ioannidis, S. Davey, B. Vrbanovic, F. Etherington, Y.
Fernandes, K. Galloway-Sealock and P. Singh voting in favour; and Councillors J. Gazzola
and Z. Janecki voting in opposition.
On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic -
it was resolved:
“That the 2013 Business Planning Priorities, as outlined in the chart entitled ‘2013
Project Prioritization - Business Planning (as of December 4, 2012) and further detailed
in Chief Administrator’s Office report CAO-12-044 (2013 Business Planning Priorities),
dated December 3, 2012, be endorsed in principle.”
The Committee then recessed at 12:15 p.m. and reconvened at 1:05 p.m. with all members present,
except Councillor J. Gazzola who entered after commencement of the meeting.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 210 - CITY OF KITCHENER
FCS-12-193 - ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
3.
- 2012 COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT GRANT (CEIG)
The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-193,
dated December 1, 2012 concerning recommendations of the Environmental Committee for
2012 CEIG grant awards.
Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock inquired as to the maximum grant that any one applicant can
receive and how often sufficient applications are received that would deplete the total annual
grant funding of $10,000. Ms. C. Musselman advised that the maximum grant to any one
applicant is $3,000. and in the last 4 years there has been a decline in the number of
applications received, resulting in prorating of the surplus amounts. She added that even
though sufficient applications may come in, it does not necessarily mean they will all qualify for
funding.
On motion by Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock the staff recommendation was brought forward
for consideration as modified to provide that the 3rd bullet in the second paragraph be revised
to reflect that only $5,383.51 be prorated for use in 2013 and the remaining $15,000 be used
to either off-set the 2013 tax levy or be transferred into the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund
(TSRF); and a third paragraph be added to provide that going forward the annual CEIG
funding allocation be reduced from $10,000. to $5,000.
Mr. J. Willmer suggested that the remaining $15,000 could appropriately be used to either
reduce the tax levy or off-set the 2012 Operating deficit. Mayor C. Zehr commented that to
require those funds to be transferred to the TSRF would be redundant as all surplus funds go
there in any event; adding that he could support using the remaining $15,000 to reduce the
overall deficit in 2012.
Councillor D. Glenn-Graham suggested that the issue of reducing the annual grant allocation
be deferred to allow staff to report back on the implications of a $5,000 cap. Mr. J. Willmer
advised that he was not certain what more staff could provide in the way of additional
information, noting that efforts have been made to market the program through various
mediums and reducing the grant by half will simply mean there will be only half as much to
give out. He added that the reduced grant allocation could mean that if there are 2 or 3 worthy
applications submitted there may not be sufficient grant funds available.
Councillor F. Etherington expressed support for the reduction in grant allocation, commenting
that the City cannot afford to let this funding sit unused.
Councillor Y. Fernandes commented that recently Council decided to eliminate the Local
Environmental Action Fund (LEAF), in part because of the existence of the CEIG program, and
raised concerns as to what the proposed reduction to the CEIG annual allocation is saying
about the City’s commitment to environmental initiatives. She suggested that the program
criteria should be revisited instead and would not support the reduced allocation.
rd
A motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic was brought forward to amend the 3 paragraph of the
main motion to provide that the proposed reduction in annual allocation to CEIG from $10,000.
to $5,000. be referred to the January 17, 2012 special Finance and Corporate Services
Committee meeting to be dealt with as part of the final budget day deliberations.
Councillor Vrbanovic commented that his decision will be dependent on the outcome of budget
discussions on final disposition of remaining LEAF funds, agreeing that arguments had been
made not to continue with LEAF on the basis that monies would be available through CEIG;
and if cut, he suggested this would go against priorities made known by the public in respect to
the environment.
Mayor C. Zehr requested clarification as to what is intended for disbursement of the $15,000
remaining CEIG funds. Mr. D. Chapman advised that if it is to be used to off-set the year-end
deficit as suggested, the appropriate wording for disbursement of the those funds would be to
provide that they be closed out in 2012 to the tax supported Operating budget.
Councillor Glenn-Graham suggested that rather than reduce the annual CEIG allocation that
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 211 - CITY OF KITCHENER
FCS-12-193 - ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
3.
- 2012 COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT GRANT (CEIG)
(CONT’D)
provision be made for any surplus CEIG funds beyond the $10,000. be closed out to the tax
supported Operating budget. He stated that this would allow room to provide grant funding to
worthy recipients, while at the same time not allowing the account to grow through prorating of
surplus amounts. Councillor Galloway-Sealock did not agree to amend her motion to provide
for this suggestion. She stated that it is not a matter of a change in environmental priorities but
rather she had difficulty with leaving $20,000 in an Advisory Committee budget unspent given
the need to tighten budgets in all areas. She suggested that providing an annual allocation of
$5,000 going forward is prudent to do until such time as there is evidence of greater uptake;
adding that should there be an application of merit for which there is insufficient funding same
could be brought forward individually for Council’s consideration.
The following motion was voted on in 3 separate parts by recorded votes, as follows:
Carried
Paragraph 1 - , with Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors D. Glenn-Graham, B.
Ioannidis, S. Davey, B. Vrbanovic, F. Etherington, P. Singh, Z. Janecki, Y. Fernandes
and K. Galloway-Sealock voting in favour. Councillor J. Gazzola was absent at time of
voting.
Carried
Paragraph 2 - , with Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors D. Glenn-Graham, B.
Ioannidis, S. Davey, B. Vrbanovic, F. Etherington, P. Singh, Z. Janecki and K.
Galloway-Sealock voting in favour; and Councillor Y. Fernandes voting in opposition.
Councillor J. Gazzola was absent at time of voting.
Carriedas Amended
Paragraph 3 - ,, with Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors D. Glenn-
Graham, Y. Fernandes, S. Davey, B. Vrbanovic, F. Etherington, P. Singh and Z. Janecki
voting in favour; and Councillor B. Ioannidis and K. Galloway-Sealock voting in
opposition. Councillor J. Gazzola was absent at time of voting.
On motion by Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock -
it was resolved:
“That the 2012 Community Environmental Improvement Grant (CEIG), to be funded
from the Environmental Stewardship Capital Account, be awarded as follows:
three thousand dollars ($3,000) to My Sustainable Canada for the creation of a
prototype mobile application that allows consumers to compare appliances based
on energy and/or water consumption and carbon emissions; and,
That of the remaining $22,133.51 in 2012 CEIG funds, be allocated as follows:
one thousand dollars ($1,000) be used to assist with costs related to the creation
and production of commemorative material identifying the City of Kitchener’s
contribution through the CEIG towards projects;
seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750) be used to assist with 2013 advertising
costs;
$5,383.51 be prorated for use as part of the 2013 grant program; and,
the remaining funds ($15,000) be closed out in 2012 to the tax supported
Operating budget; and further,
That action to permanently reduce the annual allocation to the CEIG program from
be deferred to the January 17, 2012 special Finance and
$10,000. to $5,000.
Corporate Services Committee meeting
for consideration as part of the final budget
day deliberations.”
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 212 - CITY OF KITCHENER
FCS-12-195 - REQUEST TO AMEND LIQUOR LICENSE AGREEMENT
4.
- THE GUANAQUITA RESTAURANT
- 273 KING STREET WEST UPPER
The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-195,
dated December 4, 2012 concerning a request to amend a liquor license agreement.
On motion by Mayor C. Zehr -
it was resolved:
“That Condition #4 of the agreement between Irma P. Donan (owner of The Guanaquita
Restaurant – 273 King Street West – Upper) and the City of Kitchener be amended to
read: ‘To stop serving alcohol by 2:00 a.m. daily.”
FCS-12-191 - ALTERNATE VOTING - INTERNET VOTING
5.
The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-191,
dated November 2, 2012 which provides information on the use of internet voting and the
feasibility of it as a voting option for the 2014 municipal election.
Mr. R. Gosse advised that following substantive research on the subject of internet voting, staff
is not recommending introduction of its use for the 2014 elections based on a number of
factors. He advised that while trials have been undertaken world-wide, in Ontario only a small
number of jurisdictions have made use of internet voting and primarily those have been smaller
municipalities. He pointed out that data has illustrated that this type of voting does not
increase voter turn-out, nor does it attract younger voters. In respect to security risks, he
advised that while a security attack could take place most industry experts are of the opinion
the risk in use of internet voting for municipalities is low; adding that it is more a matter of the
costs involved to ensure the system is secure in order to satisfy the public and candidates so
they have confidence in the system. He noted that where it has been used most liked the
system because of its convenience; however, the data also indicates that in most cases users
were those that would have voted in any case, regardless of the availability of internet voting.
Mr. Gosse stated that more importantly, municipalities need to consider how internet voting
follows and/or does not meet the democratic process. One of the tenets of a democratic
election is the ability for the public to scrutinize the process, as well as candidates to appoint
scrutineers to attend the voting stations to observe and ensure the process is properly carried
out. With internet voting, the public is casting their ballot out of the public eye and there is no
means to determine if any fraud and/or coercion is taking place, thereby lessening
transparency of the process. In addition, auditability in respect to a recount is lacking due to
the inability to recreate the vote. No paper ballot is used and any recount using internet voting
would rely only on the recorded number of votes received and counted by the system. Mr.
Gosse cited the example of the recount resulting from the 2010 municipal election in which the
final result was a win by one vote and stressed the importance of being able to take the ballots
and recreate the vote to confirm the results. He stated that while democracy should not be
based on costs, internet voting will add significant costs which are expected to double from
what is currently spent to conduct municipal elections. Mr. Gosse added that there has been
no Court challenge as yet to internet voting which would be helpful in determining how much
weight to put on issues of security and risk to the integrity of the election process; and based
on all of these factors, it is not recommended that this method of voting be introduced in 2014.
Councillor J. Gazzola entered the meeting at this time.
Mr. Gosse further advised that he had attended a Compass Kitchener meeting to obtain their
input in respect to internet voting, noting that they are also conducting research relative to
voter turn-out. He advised that based on their own findings, Compass Kitchener had no
concerns with staff’s recommendation, having agreed that the costs are prohibitive and
statistics have shown that it does not increase voter turn-out. Mr. Gosse advised that it was
his understanding Compass Kitchener will be bringing a report to Council prior to the summer
break in 2013 on the voter engagement piece.
Councillor Z. Janecki referred to the issue of security, questioning if security of the paper ballot
is 100%. Mr. Gosse acknowledged that no method is 100% secure; however, he pointed out
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 213 - CITY OF KITCHENER
FCS-12-191 - ALTERNATE VOTING - INTERNET VOTING (CONT’D)
5.
that the City currently uses tabulators to scan marked ballots to record votes which is not
connected to any internet system and therefore, cannot be hacked. Councillor Janecki referred
to the issue of coercion, questioning the ability of one member of a family voting for all eligible
electors in the home. Mr. Gosse explained that for internet voting each elector would receive
an individual notice, rather than one notice to all in the home, following which the individual
would go on-line to enter their name and date of birth and if the information matches to what is
in the system, they would be able to create their own PIN number. He pointed out, however,
that there is nothing to prevent one family member from collecting all PIN numbers in the
household and casting votes based on their own preference, which has been proven to
happen. Councillor Janecki questioned how much more challenging a recount based on
internet voting would be. Mr. Gosse advised that if only internet voting was used the recount
would be over very quickly as there are no paper ballots that would be recounted but rather
only the electronic system would be re-run identifying only the number of ballots received and
counted.
Councillor D. Glenn-Graham questioned if telephone voting uses the same kind of technology
as internet voting. Mr. Gosse advised that it is basically the same technology and would have
similar costs. Councillor Glenn-Graham referred to municipalities who have assumed through
use of internet voting that the number of polling stations can be reduced by about 10%,
questioning if the cost estimates provided assume the same number of polls to be used. Mr.
Gosse advised that the Town of Peterborough made the assumption that voters would
primarily use internet voting and accordingly, reduced the number of polling stations; however,
the uptake on internet voting was not as expected and the reduction in stations resulted in long
line-ups. He expressed the view that notwithstanding internet voting, the City would still have
to maintain the traditional method of voting. Councillor Glenn-Graham suggested that it should
remain as a legitimate method to explore in future. Mr. Gosse agreed that if just internet voting
was used it would be more cost effective; however, at this time, he expressed the opinion that
the cost is not worth the associated risks.
Mayor C. Zehr questioned the percentage of those who actually voted in the 2010 elections
versus total eligible electors. Mr. Gosse advised that in 2010 there were approximately
149,000 eligible electors of which about 25% exercised their right to vote. Mayor Zehr
commented that there is likely to be a time when this will be an accepted method of voting and
security will be improved; however, at this time, it was his opinion the risks, as well as the
additional costs per voter does not warrant use of internet voting.
Councillor F. Etherington questioned the potential for senior levels of government to lead the
way in regard to use of internet voting. Mr. Gosse referred to a report from the Federal Chief
Electoral Officer which also says internet voting is not warranted at this time and while they
have announced intent at the Federal / Provincial levels to pilot internet voting, there has been
several by-elections since for which internet voting was not used and they have yet to use this
method of voting. He added that Australia piloted internet voting in 2007 but has since
abandoned the method citing prohibitive costs and results that produced no real value in its
continuation. Mr. Gosse expressed uncertainty in respect to a move by senior levels of
government to lead the way nor is there any expectation at this time for wide-spread use in the
United States. Councillor Etherington suggested that costs notwithstanding, should internet
voting be introduced voter returns are likely to change and in particular among youth, as
electors become use to this method. Mr. Gosse pointed out that in the Town of Markham who
has used internet voting, electors in the 2010 elections were required to register for internet
voting. He advised that of the approximate 18,000 who did register only about 10,000 actually
cast their vote, demonstrating that while electors will say they are more likely to vote using this
method they do not.
Councillor Y. Fernandes suggested that this method should not be completely abandoned
given its convenience to the electorate. She referred to voting in schools where concerns have
been raised by the School Boards as to the safety of children, questioning if consideration is
being given to increasing the number of opportunities to vote at an advanced voting location.
Mr. Gosse advised that a post-election review is always conducted to determine where
improvements can be made, pointing out that in regard to use of schools a change in
legislation would be helpful in that, staff have discussed areas of concerns with the Minister of
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 214 - CITY OF KITCHENER
FCS-12-191 - ALTERNATE VOTING - INTERNET VOTING (CONT’D)
5.
Education and local School Boards asking that municipal election days be designated as a PD
day so children and staff are not at the school when voting is taking place. He reiterated that
Compass Kitchener is currently looking at the issue of citizen engagement and how to get
people excited about voting and in 2006, a survey was conducted from among all Wards for
which over 75% of respondents indicated no concerns with the election process and/or
location of voting stations.
Councillor J. Gazzola commented that he had felt there would be merit in using internet voting
and was surprised by what has been shown through the research presented. He expressed
the need for senior levels of government to provide a basis for this type of voting at reasonable
costs and was in agreement with the direction recommended by staff at this time. Mr. Gosse
agreed that in future it is likely this will become the primary method used but associated risks
must first be addressed, adding that while it could be done now he suggested the better
question to ask is should it be done and it was his opinion now is not the right time.
Councillor B. Ioannidis requested further explanation of how a recount is conducted. Mr.
Gosse advised that under traditional voting methods, a recount is conducted by counting the
paper ballots in the same manner as though it was being done on election day. With internet
voting, this cannot be done as there is no paper ballot and it is expected that in this instance a
challenge would be made whereby a Judge would be charged with determining whether or not
the process and democratic principles were met. Councillor Ioannidis commented that while
disappointed in the results of the research undertaken, he was in agreement with staff’s
recommendation that internet voting is not feasible at this time.
Councillor P. Singh requested clarification of the cost estimates. Mr. Gosse advised that if
introduced, the cost of internet voting would be added to the costs associated with traditional
voting, reiterating that the City would not run only internet voting but rather it would be provided
as an alternate option to use.
Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock questioned if discussions had been held with other area cities
to determine the feasibility of a joint tendering process. Mr. Gosse advised that numerous
meetings have been held among area Clerks, noting that Cambridge has committed to
introducing internet voting and Waterloo has yet to make a decision. Councillor Galloway-
Sealock questioned the ability to make use of the system to be used by Cambridge. Mr.
Gosse advised that joint tendering has been carried out over the last 2 elections resulting in
use of the same company and it would be the same in respect to internet voting wherein,
companies would offer a package deal that may provide some efficiencies; however, it was his
opinion it would not drop costs significantly. He added that notwithstanding
use of a single company, it would still mean 3 different operating systems due to the security
risks involved in having all voting data of the 3 cities collected into one system. Councillor
Galloway-Sealock questioned if the City is compensated for conducting the Regional and
School Boards elections. Mr. Gosse advised that there is no compensation received as the
City is mandated through legislation to undertake elections on their behalf.
Councillor Z. Janecki expressed support for the direction recommended by staff, noting that
the associated costs versus the percentage of voter turn-out does not warrant introducing
internet voting at this time. Councillor S. Davey commented that costs aside, democratic
principles must be maintained and until such time in future as the associated risks are
addressed, he could not support a method of voting that could potentially jeopardize the
integrity of the election process.
FCS-12-197 - MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT INITIATIVE (MIII) PRE-
6.
SCREENING GRANT APPLICATION
The Committee considered Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-197,
dated December 4, 2012 concerning a proposed application under the Provincial MIII program
to facilitate completion of the Bridgeport Neghbourhood Secondary Feed Watermain project.
Mr. R. Hagey advised that in August 2012 the Province launched the Municipal Infrastructure
Investment Intiative (MIII) as part of the Municipal Infrastructure Strategy to address priority
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 215 - CITY OF KITCHENER
FCS-12-197 - MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT INITIATIVE (MIII) PRE-
6.
SCREENING GRANT APPLICATION (CONT’D)
road, bridge, water and wastewater projects through comprehensive asset management plans.
Up to a maximum of 90% of total project costs or $2M, whichever is lower, can be requested
for a single project in one of these 4 categories, for which municipalities are unable to pay for
without provincial assistance. Following review of the program guidelines, the Bridgeport
Neighbourhood Secondary Feed Watermain project is being recommended for submission
based on receiving the maximum grant possible to lessen impact on funds required from the
water rate. It was noted that the project is projected to cost $653,200 of which the City’s
portion would be $65,320 to be funded from the Water Utility in 2013.
Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned that given the watermain proposed is only at 50% of its
design life, if there are any others older that should be looked at sooner. Mr. W. Malcolm
advised that this project was selected because of the risks associated with a break in this
particular main as it is the only source of water for 700 residents in the Bridgeport area. He
stated that other older mains have redundancies already built in, adding that there is only one
other that may qualify which is in the Sportsworld area. Mr. Malcolm advised that only one
project can qualify under the program for which the Bridgeport project is being recommended.
Mr. Malcolm agreed to provide further information to Council on the Sportsworld watermain.
Mr. D. Chapman added that part of the criteria is based on ‘criticality’, pointing out that the
Bridgeport watermain is underground, flowing underneath the Grand River which makes
repairs/rehabilitation a challenge in winter months should a break occur.
Councillor Fernandes questioned the impact of removing the second paragraph of the staff
recommendation pertaining to developing a comprehensive asset management plan,
suggesting it is not relevant to the proposed application. Mr. D. Chapman advised that the
criteria provides that a declaration be made which includes a statement of commitment to
developing a comprehensive asset management plan and the second paragraph is therefore
required as part of the application submission. Mr. H. Gross explained that an asset
management plan for water has to be completed by Utilities regardless of this application and
this provides opportunity to do so.
Councillor J. Gazzola questioned the urgency of the project given it is not included in the 10
Year Forecast. Mr. Gross advised that the urgency is related to taking advantage of the
opportunity to obtain provincial funding assistance to complete a project that has associative
high risk consequences should the watermain fail. Mr. Chapman added that part of the criteria
relates to the City’s fiscal situation and staff must be able to demonstrate that this project
cannot be afforded without provincial assistance. He stated that it would be difficult to make a
case for a project that is scheduled for municipal funding within the Forecast and staff have put
forward an application that they feel is the best opportunity to meet the funding criteria.
Councillor Gazzola advised that he would like to see a short list of projects that were
considered and how they ranked in terms of the criteria.
Councillor Z. Janecki questioned why staff would not pursue an application to the maximum
limit of $2M. Mr. Chapman reiterated that staff has attempted to put forward an application
that is as attractive as it can be to enhance chances of receiving funding and is of the opinion
this is the best project to put forward. He added that this application seeks 90% funding of the
total project cost and given the City’s application will compete for funding requests from across
the Province the likelihood of receiving the maximum of $2M is unlikely.
In regard to the question of committing to development of an asset management plan,
Councillor Vrbanovic commented that like or not, such plans are likely to be a requirement for
future funding programs, pointing out that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario have
been advocating for same and he anticipates it will flow through to Federal funding programs
as well.
Mayor C. Zehr commented that it is prudent of staff to find programs that will assist in funding
projects other than through property taxes. He suggested that staff should be encouraged to
look for funding programs that ultimately result in less cost to the municipality that otherwise,
the City would have to bear full cost to do. He added that asset plans provide a level of
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 10, 2012 - 216 - CITY OF KITCHENER
FCS-12-197 - MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT INITIATIVE (MIII) PRE-
6.
SCREENING GRANT APPLICATION (CONT’D)
comfort as to why infrastructure is being replaced when it needs to be done and questioned
why asset management planning would not be done as it gives the basis on which to judge the
appropriateness of undertaking infrastructure projects. Mayor Zehr expressed the view that
both clauses of the recommendation are valid and should be approved as a unit as one cannot
be had without the other.
Councillor Fernandes questioned that given the proposed project is not in the Forecast, would
a project in the Forecast be bumped to accommodate this project if funding is received. Mr.
Chapman advised that given the City’s share of costs would be small there would be no
rationale to bump another project from the Forecast. He also pointed out that the City’s share
of costs is to be funded from the Utility reserve and therefore, will have no direct impact to the
tax levy.
Councillor D. Glenn-Graham requested that in addition to receiving a list and ranking of other
projects considered for this application, a list of projects on the radar for future funding
programs be provided.
Councillors P. Singh commented that when there is ability to leverage funding sources from
other levels of government it should be supported and this is one such opportunity.
Carried
The following motion was voted on by a recorded vote and , with Mayor C. Zehr and
Councillors D. Glenn-Graham, B. Ioannidis, S. Davey, B. Vrbanovic, F. Etherington, P. Singh,
Z. Janecki, Y. Fernandes and K. Galloway-Sealock voting in favour; and Councillor J. Gazzola
voting in opposition.
On motion by Councillor P. Singh -
it was resolved:
“That the information in the Expression of Interest, attached to Finance and Corporate
Services Department report FCS-12-197, regarding the Bridgeport Neighbourhood
Secondary Feed Watermain, be certified as factually correct; and further,
That it hereby be confirmed that the City of Kitchener is committed to developing a
comprehensive asset management plan that includes all of the information and analysis
Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset
described in the Ministry of Infrastructure’s
Management Plans
by December 31, 2013.”
ADJOURNMENT
7.
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
J. Billett, AMCT
Committee Administrator