HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-14-009 - 2014 Final Budget Day KI Staff Report
Finance an,d Corporate Services Department www kitchener ra
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: January 30, 2014
SUBMITTED BY: Dan Chapman, Deputy CAO
519-741-2200 x 7347
PREPARED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning
519-741-2200 x 7353
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: January 15, 2014
REPORT NO.: FCS-14-009
SUBJECT: 2014 Final Budget Day
RECOMMENDATION:
For discussion.
BACKGROUND:
In August, Council set direction for the budget after considering report FCS-13-120 (2014
Budget Process). Since then, Council has received the following reports and presentations
regarding the 2014 budget:
• FCS-13-151 (2014 Budget—Strategic Initiatives and Alternative Revenues)
• FCS-13-160 (2014 Comprehensive Fee Review)
• FCS-13-156 (2014 Capital Forecast)
• FCS-13-179 (2014 Operating Budget)
The final budget day material supplements the information from the reports listed above. The
main purpose is to provide follow up information requested by Council.
REPORT:
Tax Supported Operatin_a Budget
The starting net tax levy increase for 2014 is 1.17%, but Council has a number of options that
could change this rate. The options available to Council were all discussed during the operating
budget presentation and include:
• Alternative revenue proposals
• Additional assessment growth
• Strategic Initiative proposals
• Chronic deficits
F - 1
KI Staff Report
Finance an,d Corporate Services Department www1itchener ra
The potential impact of each of these options is summarized in the chart below.
Tax Increase Summary
Starting Net Levy Increase 1.17%
Alternative Revenue Options -0.15%
Revised Net Levy Increase 1.02%to 1.17%
Additional Assessment Growth -0.30%
Strategic Initiatives 0.47%
Chronic Deficits 0.39%
Potential Adjustments 0%
Enterprise Operating Budgets
All enterprise statements are relatively unchanged from the statements Council reviewed in
December with the exception of Building. Projected revenues in 2013 for the Building enterprise
are down approximately $400,000 from the projection provided on Operating Budget day. This
is due to a delay in issuing permits for a known project at the end of 2013, as well as lower than
expected permit issuance towards year-end, in advance of the implementation of a new Building
Code on January 1, 2014. The 2014 revenue budget has been increased by $100,000 to
account for the known, delayed project, but no other revenue adjustments have been made
based on economist's projections of a soft economy.
Capital Forecast
There have been no changes to the capital forecast since Council reviewed them in November.
Some of the follow up issue papers requested by Council could impact the capital forecast
depending on Council's direction.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Foundation: Efficient and Effective Government
Goal: Financial Management
Strategic Direction: Strive for competitive, rational and affordable taxation levels
F - 2
KI Staff Report
Finance an,d Corporate Services Department www kitchener ra
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The budget impact for the average homeowner is shown below.
�iuuiuu� uua uuU�»� Uuu N 'uNMKU»iui�Il�iiuuiu�ui�uiiiiuU � nu uuU
u
Change Change
2013 2014 $ %
City Taxes $ 1 ,012 $ 1 ,024 $ 12 1 .17%
Storm Water $ 118 $ 122 $ 4 3.00%
Water $ 423 $ 438 $ 15 3.50%
Sanitary $ 467 $ 490 $ 23 5.00%
Gas $ 841 $ 835 $ (6) -0.71 %
iiil��ii m���
While the overall impact on a homeowner is $48, it should be noted that $33 of this increase is
attributed to increases in Regional wholesale water/wastewater rates which are beyond
Kitchener Council's control. The table below breaks down the total impact to homeowner into
the Regional and City portions.
Impact on Homeowner— Regional Portion vs. City Portion
Regional Portion of Increase 1 $33
City Portion of Increase $15
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Budget information has been made available on the City of Kitchener website
(www.kitchener.ca/2014budget). Feedback has been welcomed using the following methods:
• Public meeting on January 13, 2014 in the Council Chambers
• Budget webpage including the interactive budget tool
• Responses to Facebook and Twitter postings, including an "Ask the Expert" session
• Regular mail at: 2013 Budget, c/o Corporate Communications, Kitchener City Hall, PO
Box 1118, 200 King St. W. 2nd Floor, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
• Dedicated budget phone line
Issue Paper BD10 summarizes public input received as of the date of this report.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Dan Chapman, Deputy CAO (Finance and Corporate Services)
F - 3
W
}+ W
C� a)
p O A-j
CL •— O
�--+ L E N
CO) E
O O
� � v CO
O
CU c
N
a) m
a)
m =3
i
C� c� a)
C)
L.L
-0
W
U)
O C:
� O
•- m U
c� U) ozs
a) c: =3 U)
QL I O � c:a)O >
-o O >
O Q O O
-t O ry •-
O � O � C:Q > O
O QL •— � •— �
Q — C6 c � �
(n L � O •-
O •— 4-a
U O
O x � O C6 4-0
O w U Q Cn0 0�
Q
■
O
�;
�,
a)
cn
(� % O ♦=
� .� � � .x U
04- 0m O -2 O
� pUE 0 =
cn !E
ppV
C� cn 0 +� O cn cn � =
,- U
O c S O U U
v cu �� ma .- �'- ate
_ m L- ca •— m
O � }' m � � :3 a)
0 0 oOcnEU mcn �
`— =
I
Q co Cn
V,
�0
j
O p �
p O p �
o E
(� o m p o p cn
a) 3: m m
-C 4- a) a)
-�-j 0 0 C: L.
p � .- O � O
� O .— }, Z •— to v�
Q p En 4) C6 4) 4)
c: 0 a) -�-j O
U C: O x � x 4) to
L C6 4) .O C6 p O-�-j
C: C: 4-0.— O a)_0
a) C/) a) E� a) � a) o x o �
�:,
� •
0 ° D- o
(� 4 x o 0 -N C:
C6 U
L. o U) cn
p -0 •- O
C/) 0
'v _0 o =3 a)
o 0o LL M vn
cM a a m
C� � o o a)
O O N U
a)
o•- —
� U _ O
o L c: a)
L a) .—
o O a) c .0— a) c/)
0
CU M •N }' `
L U O C6 O
U) U O
E cu a) u)
4-0 O
- ca o a) Cn o
O �% - L. x
U U � o � � ~ cu o LL
4) U � Q ca
m
aD �
o �
COQm
a �
� c
X L
m N
H �
III u, 0 100, 0 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 116, 010, 0 0 0 0 0 1010, 010, 111?H c iiU(�1p
��lpl
110 N It Ln O O O Ln 110 O M O M O 00 01 M rl r-I 00 M
O O Ii M Ii N Ii N N M Ol Ii M Ol :I: O N O O O Ol O
ri ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri ri 0 0 0 0 0 ri o ° o
dun� c I N N N Ln c I I, O M M 00 O l0 O O 01 i n O �,
M Ln 110 O O O Ln I� r-I N O :1- LM 110 M M M r-I r-I r-I U-) �� 00
O O c-I M -i N -i N N M O -1 M ill Gl It N T-I cr)
i T
c-I c-I v v v v v v r-I v r-I
N
O
O
v Q
>_ v
u a
U
V)
) N v Q V)
C C U
U O O �V V)
�v�Q)
-u
v0 v � 0
110 dA
- U
O O
o_ o_ =
co co cv v) � cv
gg 3 ~ )
w v O v >
O O o 0 X C7 > � . o
v v ° v v o > c � a, a
to N N N C �"' .0 J N N Q
> — 3 > > E Q
a°o a°o a°o o ° ° v p '+ v
c c c c N c: — O p c +O+ +0,
N Q N N o_ O O '� i c N �VVVVI
N N N N E w E N N — '+r 3 } — 3 N
u CL LL
W i N v) U N i
- ) � v > a a, � " >, ° " X v
„ m Ln Ln �n w 0 m a 0 0 0 O m w o°c Z CIJ 5 Q o_ vii w H �uiiuii6 D
Ask
o o 0 0 0 -
Lr*-" Ln O r*-" rn •
ri 0 0 0 0 -
CO 4-J
(D (3) s
0 o
a� O
U N
E ,
> >
� — U
4-J 0 ._ U
= aA —
i }' 0 '
4-J }' }, s< V)
i
N
U :
L 2>2 p Ui
U cn W co
•—
U >
J (n N >
16
(a •p =3 (a
LL
cn E
00 U •o cn
o
� c � o
v N N N �j cn (n
p c) c)
N Q N O N N CL
L
4-0 .� z � E E
� �c: o o
cn
U � E
Q > >
N
N C
E Q C V p p p
. _ O > p 2 U U U >
co O o O w cn co E E o m
c- L (n N > o o O
CO M N •a) c o � N
L +r N o N ch w cn 5 o o cn E
CL x (D 00- O U > m m W E) Lu 0- (n
N M LO (D 00 O O
O O O O O O O O O �
O p p p p p p p p p p
• m m m m m m m m m m
a�
aD �
Q. m
L.
� 0)
c
Lu �
'CU L
E cn
(�
° J a�
L U cY L
.—
C� � L o
c 2 °N O can
O
. C/) N a)
U a) •—
� '- •�
o — E
'— o 0
(U
L =3 },
C
m oo C/)
C� V
� o
Q ca a� m v, (1) c/)• L >> cv) p ca cn cu
L. -,--j =3 L- (1) a)
a a.L ,> L a) c D
c
Q -,--a a) a) °
+� Q = — x >L m
a)
a) W
a
a� a� a) },
a� a� a�
cy) m m m
L L- C
u) Q
W
L-
a)
L
. _ CY, v)
CU CU m
++ M I— r— LO O LO O O N ' N (N0 Cl)
N N M 00 I— O O M r— �
Go
00 N LO N `.'.�� N V
7 O N N
m N
++ N N O O O M O O N N 00 r—
N Oo O O co O O M r— r—
7 O N N
m N
rr
I-- O O O O N N V
N
LO 00 I— O O M r—
7 O N N
m N
++ O O O O O I-- O O M ' N O Ln
N O N 00 I— O O M M I-- I— O
7 O N N
m N
++ N I-- LO LO O LO O O ' ' ' M
N N O O O O M M O (D �
O LO N M .�',,C N M
7 O N N
m N
0 O O O O O qqt O O O ' O '
O O N O O O O M M LO (O (O (9)
V O O LO N M r •�,C N co
N O N N
a
++ O O O O O O ' O ' ' M M
N O N (O O O O M M LO O
O O LO N M .�,,C N M
7 N N N
m
N
N
N
� N
C
c
X 0) N N j
d ; (6
N O LL p a) O
N LU +' L
O 0 > N > O O
N O o
Q LU -0 c
O Ln
w i N U d L N v
N
LU LU (n a) a s' �
z h O C CB 0) 0) N O (6
U Q N 2 Z o L E E
co LU cn co ch - O C-) 4-- uJ v
o N () O c - E •- cC c
ZO a) a) X "o)u O J a � ° Q) rc m m
N LU L = L w 'a NMI 0 0) m E
Q W � C) 4-0 O cn J 0) �j
E
m
o W w 2 d 5 v ch
Q a s Np 'E .X
C) CL° O O ~ � ~ z 0 LU cnOQQ � C)
.)
- CO o 0 0 le o S a co o y
co n q e a W o q q o f n a a =
le a c
Ni Ni C\f C O Cl) o
m
o = n o e e � q ¥ (0 W) o y
2 n q e o v a to o f g le 0 9
o _ 04 q a o ¥ 0) o
m C-4
CD n (0 W) o LO g q o y
& W \ ~ \ \ q / , � 2 9
o n n n Ni C
m 04
LO (D o 0 0 0) n 0) q o y
& h LO h / q to \ � 7 %
o n n n Ni C\f O # LO
m 04
e a o = a a _ m o y
2 \ $ \ \ / ® % , o o � / co
C\f C\f C Ni � C O o
CD
m 04
2 k CD - / / o c / co Cl)
m k � n C Ni � # %
a
\ \ Q % $ \ I- % 2 / b 04 q ¢
& a a n = q q = 0 co N o
C C C Ni Ni # 2
0 04
� m
� S
m
LL CL
� LL
CL LU % \ 7
. _ \ 2 E a \ /
0 LU / § 0
\
° ° °
® S 9 0 c c q cn
� / \ LU � / k m / �cn cc
k_ \
� ƒ � LU � m f k \
% \ a / f / � « c 5 5 0 m ƒ
w 5 7 / w O / 7 7 O / J
+, CO (O N W) 00 N N W) O O O N O 1� LD
y qqt (O qqt (O LO (D (O CO 00 6) I- LO N CO N ti
CF) r- O (O co ti (O (O r- - V- LO r- 00 r 00 " 00 Cl)
O .1 1-: C M (D N
m N
+, CF) 00 1-- N ti 00 CF) CF) 00 Cl) O 1* 00 q9t 00 N
y 1" - qqt - O (O 0o W) LO LO O - O - M N Cl)
00 O (O CO N (O (O 6) N I-- W) N LO " 1-- 00 (N
7 .17 N 00 M N
� Ln
m
+, LO (O LO co Cl) NCF) O r- 00 LO O W) 0) L-0 00 O V
y (D CF) O O I-- 69 I- (O 00 N - LO 69 0o C N 00 00
I- N O (O N 00 Cl) (O (D O ti r- M LO co `' N I-
'a O .1 IM: ti M W N IM:
7 N
m
+, N 00 L (O W) CF) N CO W) O O O O In 69 O (0
y W) r- (O 0o co O N (O r- (O N 0o LO M 0) M N 0o LD (N
I- CF) CF) LO N W) co (O (O CF) (D 00 r- r (O `' W) I-
7 N M� 1� M LC!
m
+, CF) N (O (O O M (O 00 co O (D I- O M co co c O V
y qqt O LO 0o O 69 (O (O (O qqt M LO LO 6) 00 CF) 69 V I-
I-- - CF) qqt N -e O (O (O 00 N N r- I - ' (D 0 O
O M (D M w r
7 N
m
I- NCF) r- O W) LO I-- N 00 r O (D 00 00 M Lo (N
M LO N -e N (O N M W) CF) LO W) - In 00 O O
V I-- I-- C 69 00 (O LO (D (D N I- I* " LD 00
O
N N W N r
a
+, N N CO I- O W) 00 r- 00 1'. 00 O N (0 N 6) LD Cl)
y M I- 00 r- O N W) LO (O co O qqt LO ' N I-
O qqt 00 (O N (O r- r � � r " 1- I� O
'a p M 1� co &
7 N
m
S= _
Q N O N
X N c
L
N > Z x
X N (6
(6
■ 7 N W y � 0 O
) A
N L� 0 0 LD
C5 L V > W a) °
Om O L w
N L 40 O 7 N c6 c6
C O x O yy O z C 0 Q' S= E E
W L ��/ fn ca N H H Mca cn m m aD
N LL :.. L U W 'a W U L CO
in 5 co c (o d E
2
w W J Z3 D
9 2 � � Oc
E
w z o L' U)i
�. (n w I- o N V r- o O O m 0 O ( O V O O 0 0 0 0 0 00
d 00.. O O N 00 00 Cl) V (0) (n 00 00 (O Cl) V (O O V O
. CO N O (D - (O 00 () V 00 V Cl) O O O O O
3 . O V 6 O 00 N m O (O (O (O N
N V N (n N
m
}, m N o N O N o Lo O r- O r N O m O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O
O l(') (n 00 00 N (D T (D N (D (0) I- 00 O V O O
�''............ (D 00 I- O V O (n N O 00 O O 00 O O O O
(7) LO Cl) Oj O r- N O (D N (D V V Cl) (n V N
m N CO - N (n - N
�. 0 O I- o O
d � (O o V r- V I- N 00 r- CO V O 0 0 0 0 O O
N V 00 00 00 I- (h (O O 00 O Cl) O N 00 N O O
(D
00 (n N O N I-
- I- 00 00 00 O O(00 (n Cl)(h (7) O r- N � O LO -LO Cl) N Cl)
(n V N
3 N (h - N (0) - N
m
(0) (n O o V O LO) o N CO 00 c) V l(') V V r- O V V 0 0 0 O O
LC)' (D Cl) Cl) 00 O O 00 N O I- O V N O 00 O O O O O
........... O
'a O N 00 (7). O (0) (0) (p O V V V (0) O V 00 � O O O O
00 (n N O
r- N (n O 00 V 00 Cl) Cl) (n V N
3 N CO - N (0) - N
m
I- N o O O o 0 - N - (n O O w N w V O O O V O O
d Cl) 00 00 r O V 00 V 00 (D I- Cl) O O O O O
Cl) O Cl) O V Cl)
O r- N V I- (O O O O O
m V N (7) r- N N (h O (D O Cl) V (h (n - N
N �
00 00 O o N o N w (0) 00 O O N O (n O O V O V O O
V r- 0N IT V V O O � � � O O M 00 LO (D Cl)( O
- -
d p Cl) N (7) r- N O N I- N (h (D (h (n - N
CO � N
>I a
�. (O (0) o I- LO) (14 o (14 (0) (0) (0) I- O O O (0) 0 0 0 0 0 O O
d O 00 LO) O (0) (h V O 00 O O O 00 O O
00 I- - 00
) N (O O O O - O 00 O O
ml( a0 I� N I- O V Cl) (n V N m N
N U
� O O
T
O
O
O C
O a)
N N O
a) 3 U C
C U) N LL N
> N
x x N `� U) a)
N C E N > > a) E (0) N
a) a) o
O C p O- a) �' C o O a)
7 a) O �
IL U) -l) 0 o a) N a) LO
(0 a) d N O- O T.N
_ > > > N � � a _ Y Y
`) N > U N Y ,` IL O N u) O N N
N U o a� o > E E o C: U 0 m}
E U) _ U L > U U
A o IC o 0 U C fn a) fn E O U U i C U) O C O
L U) N O L N O w Q O a) C D -O a) O 0 O m m
>_ w o O 0 U) w o o co m x aa) m m -0 U Qw E,
a� w a c w N a)w a) E E
N 0 > a N > a N U) _ c a a U 3 U c .Q.2 U E .�
o N x ° a� x ° U) E E n3 c E x
O co 2m— o n3 x QQQ � � m m R m � UQ m
° (9 CEO C3 w m0 co Um m � �
a+ O O O o Cl) O I- O N 00 M M O o N O N O LO 0) It
N N O co It 00 0) Cl) 0) 0) O Cl) r 'It (D LO
co 0) 0) O r r N 0) O O O 00 00 � r
3 N' M M O M
M M
m O O O o I- O O Cl) N 00 M M O o O O N O N 0) It
O a+ N N O 00 It M 0) M 0) 0) O N r M O LO
T- 0)- G)- O O r N 0) (0- (D- O 00 00 I- r
'a O N N O Cl) Cl) Cl) O
■ 3 N Cl) Cl)
■ ■ ■ a+
00 O o O O I- N 00 M M O o 00 O N O O 0) It
V N N O It It 00 O) co 07 07 O O r N (O LO
O O) O O O N O O O O 00 00 I- r
m N M M
Oa+ O O O o (O O LO N 00 M M O o (O O N O 00 0) It
N N O 0) It It 0) Cl) 0) 0) O 0) r O O LO
�..... 0)- G)- O O) O N O) (0- (D-
O I- 00 r
N M M O N Cl) Cl) It p
m r
r
a+
00 O o O O O O LO 00 M 00 o N 00 N O (D 0) qt
N 't 00 00 00 00 Cl) 0) N 00 0) O (D 0) LO (O r 0) (D LO
0) 00 O N 00 O 0) LO N (O I- 00 00 r r
-a 0....... N _ r M .. .. N M Ln P- P- O
7 N Cl) Cl)
L m
V o N 0 O M O O 0) N o O N O O N 0 00
N O I- N N r- Cl) 00 I- LO 0) LO 00 LO O LO 00 N
V M (D (D 0) 00 00 0) 00 LO N 00 (O r M 00 O O
d p lt LO nj N M LO O LO LO I-- Ln r r
'O N Cl) Cl) I r It
06 IL`
a+ M N o N 0) N o o (O 0) O o O 00 O
0 N N M N Cl) 00 It O LO O O M 00 Cl) Cl) 00 N
r (V 00 r O r r 00 N Ln 0) Ln Ln O O
'a O LO ' r M N r It O O H It r r
mN................... M Cl) It
CL
CLO O O O O
U c (4 c c
C� N
O �
++ m u m
N Q 0 CO Q O 0
X `F w X w
a) p O a) p O
i o o O o 0
cu 0
CO
CO 0 0 0 LO �4.
a) 0 0 LO N a O
M 4.
O y N O O M o c H a) a)C: U C:
fn
0 0 f0 a) -0 a) N O. to to O - U) +J -a N a)
N
0 U
m m
V d C) a) a) U 3 L C a) d a) U j 3
�n co a p U) a) c H a p rn c "a a) a) c
O N a) X i v) H N "a +J cB H a) X i U) H cB "a +J c m
°o cu W C7 (a a Q m c@ c� W C7 (a m Q O io c m
C7 C7 0 O m C7 C7 C7 m m
a+ (O N (f) o 00 t N t M M O M O N (f') N N 0) O O O o 0 0
O O N (f) O 00 (n It 00 O 00 O N M) N 00 O O O O O
.a 00 O O O O 00 co N N N N ' O O ' ' O (f) (f) N O) O
7 N O V (O co O � I, V (0 N N O
m � N
N 0) o It r- r- N N � lf') I- (f') co N M It 00 O O o 0 0
N O t M) It _ 00 't 00 (O 00 O W r N N (f) O O O O O
r 00 � O) 00 (n — (n 00 00 ' N O) O) O) ' ' O) (n (n (n O) O
m O (f M I- r- Nr- — m u 'q (V (V O N
M N C
O co I- o O M -�t B O O M O M I- N M � � It O O o 0 0
tD N Cl) 00 (O (f) O (f) (O 00 N 00 N (O O N O N N O O O O O
r 00 -�t co M O) (O — O) 00 '`t (O It ' O O OO O) M (n O O) O
O M M I- r- (p (h N 'q� C m m O N
m CO N
O co I- o (f') N co O (f') O 00 O 00 I- CY) (O O O (O r- O O o 0 0
U) (O M) O It '�t M O 't It It Cl) N (0 Il. N 0) O O O O O
m r (O LO — O O M) 00 It 00 r- Cl) r- ' (d t` (O 00 I ' 00 (n LO (0 O O
M 4 � (O M � (+j m N V � m V O
N M N
m
O O o 't M O (f) M O I- O M O O O O O O O o 0 0
O O O O It O 00 M) 't 00 (O ,t M N r- r- O O O O O
co- (n O 0 O co It r- (O 00 O 00 ' M (0 V 00 ' ' ' 00 (f) (f) N O O
3 N
M N lt lt � (O M � M M N V � (f) V O
m
V O r- N o r- O r- 't lf') (O lf') (O r- N N O O N O O O
M It It O It O M) 00 (n O 00 0) 00 Il. 00 O 0) 00 (O N r- O O
V) O N O O O `-' O ' O m O L ' N 00 LO LO
d 0 M 0) 'q - (O (f) N M) (n 6 m Lo M
p N M
L
a
a+ (O O N O O N r- (f o N M o 0 0
M O M M) 00 It (O r- ' O O N O O
N N (f (n (n r O (O (O O (O O N
0)
mN M N � 4 (O (O N M) (n 6 M u) " � V (O
N (6
(6 U
U O)
T O
U O
N
N S N U c
C N
4
+�+ Z N N 0 O N N> N
Co L 0) C N `0 '+� C Q'
W 0) 0) 1L > 0) 0) O O co 0) \°
N
7 i > O Q L c c .N Q c oO O)
N Z > U a) as °\o N Z o N af m
w 7 In N
Z uJ Q W 0) 7 N Y Y co 0 Y O O
W 0) N > C U N LL 0) C N +O+
K o ° ° W > a) E t v o o > a) E t E
W L Co co o co a) c 0 C C U - c 0 o N
a) H C U U Z +
13 Z N Q W O x O _ O = O_ Co N C (0 m m U� O N N O m m > U
Q O Z W m m
O a) N d J L W N (D N N - N_ 'E W s .. c E E •E W U 5 c E
N Z co O W Z Q N O N N J Q N O Q-
°o � cn � C9pNOa0SHdH � OQQJ U QOQQQU C C C
W a
C7 W w V) U o 0 0
+' (O 00 00 o N (h O N 0) 00 O I- N - N (D O h 0 C7 0) N O O o 0 0
00 (D (D O 00 0 (O 0) (D C7 V O V C7 00 0 07 (D N O V N O O O
� (0 N (1) V (0 r r r (0 O O r V i LO O) V 0) i i O V C' 07 0) O
j N 0 ) 0) C; r(h r(V 06 r (V r (h V^ ^N (n (D O
m V N N
+' (0 00 00 o N ('7 N O (0 V N 00 In 00 00 - 00 In 00 (h O O o o o
I- r O N (0 (0 O N V V I- 00 0) 00 - O O O (1) N (0 V N O O O
O Cl) (0 V (0 (0 (0 r 0 'T h 0 0) 1 1 O V (h 07 0) O
3 0 I� r 0) --(6 (N p) �j V h h(V In (d O
m N V N N
+' N o ('7 (O (0 O N (0 (0 l0 Cl) V (O N CO 00 r- (n O O o o o
(0 N CO V - 0) - 00 - I- 0 V - V N O O O O NC7 V N O O O
� (0 (0 O V (0 (0 V (0 (0 (0 O V (O V I V (C 0) O V C' (n O 0
7 N V LOO -C7 O ('7O �� VO " N In (0 O
m V N N
+' (O 00 I- o V 00 V lO I- (0 (0 lO V (0 V 0 (h 0 V - (0 00 O O o o loo-
CF) LO C7 C7 N (0 0 V O N (O 0 (0 0 V Cl) V 00 N O V N O O O
r N 0) (1) V (0 LO C7 (0 - (1) O O (0 O (D N (l 00 0) V m 07 O O
0 N C7 00 C7 O V O -- N V(0 r N (n r O
m N V N N
+' V I- o (0 N lO V(0 lO N (0 r r 00 (0 N 00 (p (p O O o 0 0
.1 N 0 — (O O N O — — V 00 C7 C7 — (D LO N 00 V N O O O
� — N 0 V (D (O N (D (0 0 0 V N V (() 0 0 0 „ 00 V m O O O
L 0 O N P- --C7 0) C\[P- nj V(0 h N In h 0
m N V N N
(D o)� NI- o lO 0O V 00 ('7N (0 V ('7 V N Om ('7 ('7 (0 V
00 V V O (O (0 CO 00 V N (0 (0 V (0 ('7 00 Cl) lO Nh
V Cl) 00 O 00 V (O V 00 (O — (7 (7 0 0 N (C L 00 00 O O
N 0 (0 N V N 0) N(0 N N
0 N C7N �
L
(L
4) V (0 00 0 (0 N O (0 00 (h N 0) (O CO (O O I- N V V o 0 0
co N 0) N 0 (O V (0 00 V N N (O V (O (O (O N CO N h (O O O
(D
0 N LO (0 V V V 0 (O ('7 V (0 (0 00 0J h i i 1 O O h 0)
mN OMOi �N 0) N(0 N NN V (hul rN
A N
(6 U
U a)
� O
co
O -0
N `0
U O
w
Q N N
0 X N (6 (6 4
Z p N a�i o 0 0 N
m 7 w w m m
■ N N 7 7 O 0 N Q a) a)
N W 3 Z _ N o N
c a m
W d W Q
N Q Q N > N N c a� .o
r o E o > o. o W
v
0 U w LL
E: 0 U U C Z (6 N N N a) m W N N .� N a) m N O
CO 3 0 0 W > (6 X Q' O O > O m 0 N C (6 0] N m N p_ N m 2 2 U
m m d O 7 N N w p E p X p m m X m a E Cm W p N d J W 'c_ N N rn m .� W c w U c E a) a) a)
Z N NO O � W t Z E .S N O (6 N J QU U N O N QU U U O N N N N
u W (nUU` V OW Q � � (nHdH aNi � OQQJU � � ~qOQQQU
o > O y a 0 Q
U` W W N U
0 0 0
a+ Cl) O O 00 N I- 00 M Lo M N O N N O_ O O N M M O 10
O I- r- LO 00 O 00 V Cl) I- O 0 0 0) N N I N W N O O
MOO O LO In I- V In Cl) (O O 00 Cl) 00 Cl) l()
3 1- N V V M
3 p V L - N L L6 L
m N
N_ O O (O Cl) Cl) O O O N N N M O o 0
r LO r- O O LO r- N r- - (O (O (O O V
Cl) N N V V O M O V LO (7) (O (7 In 00 00 00 W N
V V - N N 0
V V V
m N
d V O Cl) O O In 00 Cl) Cl) O r- V I- Cl) In 00 (14 M 0) o 0
31 w LO V O In O Cl) In V O I- lf) O O M
-a 00 In co (O N In CO O O 00 In In O W N
N V V M
m N
d r- 00 N O LO O V O LO O N 00 N V V N 00 O v O
N CO O V O r- lf N _ l() M N W N v O o O
-a M Lo 00 O N LO Cl) r- O V (O O (O 0) 0
3 p Cl) Cl) N V V V
m N
Cl) V LO V V O V O In (7) LO 00 00 O O O - 0 M 0) o 0
O O O In N N O CO O 00 O O V O N N
N N N O O 00 In M In - In Cl) Cl) - - 00 00 00 (7) - M- W N
C14 C N O N - N V V 0
CO N
(O LO V O (`7 N O 0 Lo 00 M (0 c) 00 O O M O O O O O
r N r- O CO N N N N CO N O O O O N V N W N
co N D M
d p N N (h N G (h C
•0 N
a
y
(O I- V I- O Cl) O O O N (O N ch d) M O o 0 0
(D
Cl) 00 00 r- LO V In N In O In Cl) O) N W 0 0 N OO
N V I- V 00 (O Cl) 00 N CO � N � I-
(6(O V
C4
m N
U) N
O N N
N a)
(D
U
U
0- O
CO
U) a) O
i N N N
_Q
° 3 3
U) N N U C
N4= M 2 2 N C a)
O � �
> > N N s s
a) > Z N N 45 O O 0 N P a)
E O (0 � - C U) - C SP N N
j V) N IL ° N a) ° ° N a) o d'
C O O N N
N 0-
1+ Q o o o O
-0 a) 0 U U �_ a) U O O L
O N 0- � Q O .N a) Q ' m a) '�
° a) a) . ° W > O a) E C w °) E > a) E
t U O t fA
U c c U .� m m a) c v c v = a=
c E m
o U a a) s U U a) 0 m U) i) u) ° a) m W m N in n3 a) m
CO
a) > 2 c x U O _ o m a) 2D m m m W m a, 0 m m a
W 3 W .N � W a) E a) ° °c) x c 3 �' 0°c) x °) 3
E co c N N 2 N 0 _ E W c .E W S c E
Z `p Z E .� N �p N N 0 V) J Q_O _O N Np � Q-O -O NO E N N
N c� 0 W Q � � cnC� � m � a`�i 0 C) ~ OQ QU U o
a c9
w w m o 0
O
N
N
ry
L • >m
L � E
L
O
C/)
W
• m
-4--j
■
U
a) s.. m
♦ )
a
Q. a
CU m
C).
U V
�--+ c: O Cll
C/) �
U
M�
C/) CL CU
cu CL
LL L 0 �
—
`~o O � J
C� C� O CU
�+ = Cll
E ,,,a a)
v V
CU O CU L.
(� U Cn O
U .
W
U
(n
CD
c
L a O LL
0
m
0) 4-1 O N
O C (u _0 O
_ c
U
p N C: U N N ( (N a
C: E O Q
U o U D� N to � .> N C:O N O O N JJ C +C
06 0 c C: c � � _0
` O
— O m ca � � I - W N -0
N U N O N �
CU 0 LL E Fu' (� ca � 4 ca � (D (n
cA O N
� V Q O � N to Q cn U N
N V U 0 O U U 0
N O � N cu >% >>O N 2! cu
c
O — N CO LO (D f` 00 m O N
N N N N N N N N N N co co co
vmmmmmmmmmmmmm
ulllll .......................................................
i N � i � i o
O m 19T O C7 N
III�m VII IIII ti
O O O O O O O
69- 69- 69- 69- 69- 69-
u
.
u6ilu
,��O ' O
uu�umm
O O O O O O uuuuuillim 00
1111 '11
VIII O O O O O O III
Jill,
Illlllllf
O O O O O O uu ul O Lo 00
O LO O L 0 0 L N L �j � O
N
CIV�II.......
69- m 'IT 69- 7 O
l II
dim I
ulu�,Pddulul
000a�
� N O Illllll
�
N
L IL...... > pi L
O , Z'
WC: 0) ��� ul'B� -0-0, fn
■
I��mum � N III —j
> 70
O O LL O1 °;','m l; Q
N W'
� � N s
Z3> O
O O 4— W D _a LL
�U U U to
N N _ +2
Vi
I IuI I I
�IK
N O
C/) pllliuuul O O °1uI
}, }, }, > +) C O ¢°,j;�� LL },
U O (1) O 7C3 0 '� ~t�o �
> U Q N IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP°
C/) U II 11 IIV ¢
7C3 7C3 L IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
fn fn O O i IIIIII 1111111 �
(� O U �" O I� .—
._ I uum„Iul () VIII IIIIII
:a„�' W
L— L— O m � N ” � p U I uiiiiiiiiiii�u
7C3 O C) C) Q O N jn (1) 0 U
Q Z - - (/ Z <II LL — 0- Q
III
„III ail
r N M -q CO r-- LO
O O O O O O O
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
uuulllluu
06
U) U)
(D -i-j
. - U
4--j
LID
0
— U
O) o
L
O
� U
CO
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ............... ........................................ ................................................... ........................................ .............. ���
al ti o c1r) cfl II
Illlllllullq°°
Jillmmdum
0 0
P— O M Cfl
O
�uumu III IIII
c; c; c; C)
VIII°��
wu
rn r` LO o
C) C)
� � � 911U 1
P- N LO
� III
�� VIII
■ P- O M Cfl wi ion
�a r r 6F} � Ilu .11l
6F} 6F} 6F}
p
CIO
CIO
U (D CU Q n
C) � I � II
CIO (D o III III N a)
m ;, i` IIC'fPn
CO U m 0 IIIl�III
o o C/)
+� i cu
L U U 0 a) U) c
�� a) (D a) 0 — a) aC > �
> U > O > �
O O O .0 _r O � �
� E U cu Q O
— W — W �
r N M
91iui j
O O O O uluiiiiiill
°iluuuuuuuulll
ti ti ti
'I" � N � IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIY"
I�
�luu
III
�I
LD Im
N co LO
u
O O III
}� O O O
O O O
�, ■— � •U I��I�I�I IIII��.. O O O llllllul�°II C)
v Vi�I iw �uu ill�llhli. r �
co LO Illllluu�ill
CU
V
-
R
p > o
c a)
U � � O 0 c
• — L- a)
a) c/) c: a) a) a)
0 n ■— L- L- 70
C� — � o
L L W A` O c c
W 0) (D O
- 0 LD C: O
�
U
• III U m C/) C:
N 42 O O O
CU U cu uuuullulll
'�I81
III D (D =3 L 1°Illlllllluum
l U C: - � duuuuuul
O �/ N uuulllluuuull
O
■
��
O
�;
�,
c L-
0 p
0 W QL
C-
m
a) }+ '
> o
0 �--+
Cl)
CL CU Cl)
C/) Jc: CU C
C ca — °
o
O }, cn cn cn .cn
— ca L- C.
�--+ — a) o
�
o — .
E .c ) E cl)
a) =3 L) L- CU
O
� o
o
z LL
>,
—
Final Budaet Day - Oneratina Issue Paper (IP) Index
Included in
IP # Description Proposed
Budget?
BD01 Potential Impact of the Delayed Central Library Opening No
BD02 General Operating Questions No
BD03 Work Related Injuries/Illness Claims No
BD04 Use of Overtime and Absenteeism/Paid Sick Time - REVISED No
BD05 Business Planning New Corporate Projects No
BD06 Boulevard Tree Donations No
BD07 Economic Development Investment Fund (EDIF) Update No
BD08 Economic Development Strategic Initiatives Fund No
BD09 Postage Charges No
BD10 Summary of Public Input No
BD11 Storm Water Rate Scenarios No
F - 36
ISSUE: BD01 — Potential Impact of the Delayed Central Library Opening
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Kitchener Public Library (KPL)
PREPARER: Sonia Lewis, CEO, Kitchener Public Library (519-743-0271 ext. 244)
BUDGET IMPACT: $0—$110,000
BACKGROUND:
Kitchener Public Library's (KPL's) 2014 operating budget request includes$497,700 for
operational expenses associated with the renovated and expanded Central Library. This issue
paper responds to the Finance and Corporate Services Committee's request of December 12,
2013 to provide information regarding costs which could potentially be deferred to 2015 due to
the delay in the construction project.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Completion of the Central Library construction project was expected in 2013. Due to unforeseen
delays in construction, completion is now projected to be mid May 2014. As some Central
Library operating expenses are tied to the opening date, they could potentially be deferred to
2015. However, the delay has also resulted in some unbudgeted expenses. Maintaining the full
$497,700 in the 2014 budget would allow the KPL Board to address costs associated with the
delay.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Deferring staffing and facilities costs tied to the revised opening date of the Central Library could
result in deferring costs totaling$110,000 to 2015. However, this would leave no funding in KPL's
budget to address new costs associated with the delay.
RECOMMENDATION:
In order to address costs associated with the construction delay, the KPL Board recommends that
the Board's original budget request for$497,700 be approved in the 2014 operating budget.
F - 37
ISSUE: BD02—General Operating Questions
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Finance &Corporate Services— Financial Planning
PREPARER: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Operating Budget Review on December 12, 2013, staff was asked to provide responses to a
number of follow up items. The items contained in this issue paper are fairly short and straight
forward, so they have been combined into a single issue paper instead of providing a separate issue
paper for each topic.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
1. What is the 2014 water and sanitary rate increases for Waterloo and Cambridge?
Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge
(proposed) (approved) (approved)
Water 3.25% 3.16% 8.40%
Sanitary 5.00% 4.71% 2.30%
Combined 1 4.30% 1 3.98% 1 5.40%
Estimated Average 2014 Bill (250M) $928 $934 0,,
2. What services does Kitchener Utilities purchase from Union Gas and how much of the Gas
Delivery budget is paid to Union Gas?
Kitchener Utilities receives the following services from Union Gas:
• Gas Storage
• Gas Transportation Services
• Interruptible Service Hub Contract
• Connection Charge
The 2013 projected actual expenses for Gas Delivery on page 0-58 were $13.4 million. Of this,
$4.18 million is attributed to the services received from Union Gas.
3. Provide summary information about the City's grants for arts and culture, sports and recreation,
and economic development compared to other cities.
Staff investigated this request by using data from the Financial Information Return (FIR) which is
submitted annually by municipalities to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, but found
information available for other cities is compiled on a different basis and is therefore not
comparable, so it has not been provided.
F - 38
CITY OF KITCHENER
2014 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER `°
4. Provide the tax rate increases been for the past 10 years (including EDIF and excluding EDIF).
The table below shows the approved tax rate increases for the past 10 years including, and
excluding the special levy for the Economic Development Investment Fund (EDIF). The 10-year
average excluding EDIF is 1.77%, while the 10-year average including EDIF is 2.99%.
114 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1
Excl. EDIF 2.99% 1.94% -1.65% 1.86% 3.01% 2.87% 1.73% 3.25% 1.41% 0.32% 1.77%
Incl. EDIF 4.84% 3.76% 0.00% 3.08% 3.71% 3.98% 2.90% 3.89% 2.39% 1.39% 2.99%
S. How would the proposed tax rate increase for Kitchener, the Region and the School Board impact
the average homeowner (assessed value of$258,000)?
Based on the proposed increases for the City (1.17%) and the Region (2.80%), the total impact to
the average Kitchener homeowner would be $57.19 or 1.80% as shown in the chart below.
2013 2014 2014 %of 2014 %of
Property Proposed Proposed Proposed Property Property
Taxes %Increase $Increase Increase Taxes Taxes
Kitchener $ 1,011.80 1.17% $ 11.84 21% $ 1,023.64 32%
Region $ 1,619.83 2.80% $ 45.36 79% $ 1,665.19 51%
School Board $ 546.96 0.00% $ - 0% $ 546.96 17%
TOTAL $ 3,178.59 $ 57.19 100% $ 3,235.78 100%
Total% Increase 1.80%
6. Provide the Comparative Tax graph for cities over 100,000 population for the past four years.
These graphs have been attached below. In each of the four years Kitchener has had one of the
lowest tax burdens in Ontario, but has improved from being fifth lowest in 2010 to third lowest in
2013. Focusing within the Region, Kitchener has also improved from being second lowest in 2010
to the lowest in 2013.
The comparative tax graph shows the tax burden of the same house (3 bedroom, 1.5 bathroom
1,200 square foot bungalow on a 5,500 square foot lot) in different municipalities. This is not
necessarily the average house for those municipalities, so the figures shown in the graph will likely
differ from an analysis using a municipality's average house (e.g. the 2013 graph shows a tax
burden of$2,988 for Kitchener, while the average tax burden is actually$3,179 as shown in
question 5 above).
Also, there is a significant decrease in the Waterloo figure from 2010 to 2011. This is due to a
refreshing of the sample properties used to calculate the figures between 2010 and 2011 by BMA,
who conducted the study. Since 2011, the same property group has been used to calculate the
Waterloo figure.
F - 39
7. Provide the 2014 budget in Schedule 1 (Variance Reporting) format.
This schedule has been attached below. The budget schedule includes the following columns:
• Council approved 2013 budget
• Restated 2013 budget, which adjusts for reallocations between divisions within the City
from 2013 budget approval and today (e.g. sports grant funding moving from General
Expense to the KMAC and Arenas budget)
• Proposed 2014 budget
• Change between proposed 2014 budget and 2013 restated budget in dollars
• Change between proposed 2014 budget and 2013 restated budget as a percentage
• Commentary about significant changes. These are provided for changes that are more than
$50,000 or 10%, which are the thresholds used to provide comments for variance reports.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
F - 40
2010 Tax Burden Comparison
$4,500
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .....
$4,000 °•,
$3,500 $3,236 $3,32
$0,000 .., $2,798 $2,810
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500 ........ ....... ... .... ... ........ ........ ........
a� Q- �n c 0 4 0 a _ �n v 2
�x �c v v a 0°
a c
U CE u
4.7
2011 Tax Burden Comparison
$5,000
........_... ............
$4,500 ....... ....... ....... ........... ...
$4,000
�.3, °
$3,500 3a7
$3,043
$3,000 .................$2.879 $"2 883......... .....,,,„
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000 .,,.
$500
$a ,:w.w.e ...w.,,,.r.,, y ._y_._.__r ..w...,....�.,,. y m.........r r..,.,,..y.,..,..,y e........r..,.,.w .w.wyw.w.w e ...7...............w m.........r „r,,...,.,r...,.,,..y.::w.w.wr:.:........w"r:....
:F ttis c T x rd c
as � � � � � E r
4 O
4 2 > 2 a
4 a� s � a a
Ln~ ~ 0
l7
F - 41
2012 Tax Burden Comparison
$5,000
$4,500 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
$4,000 ....° $3,369
$3,500 $3,121
$2,933 $2,946
$3,000 . .... ...
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500 .... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
$1,000
$500
$0 ............... ........................ ...........
�
E E
ve
E
E .2 C) C) rz
M - EM 0 2 > :E 0
0 U
2013 Tax Burden Comparison
$5,000
$4,500
$4,000
$3,484
$3,500 3—,182
$2,988 $3,050 ffM M
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000 .. .... ...
$1,500
$1,000
$500
,,—JET
$0 1„,,-1- T---1---I- t,;'.,,,.,.1 T---I....I'
.L
w 0
CL 0 0 0
- -t f
0
w C2 t.- E2 -L
E E
0
> 1E
0 L2 E <
E
0 w U U
4�; 2
0 2
0 0
F - 42
Q �
U [0
a � 7
N U N
N 7 O a
E N L O O
U t U O
O i s N � N
N N 9 L N
N 9
Y y C N N
Vl
N 9 0 y N
> O U 6
Q O O C L U 0 C
7
O y O N C
p —
_
N
LL
j 'N Q N y N [0 7
ULw oU m > U
U
L O 9 N N 9 N
—2r O N
N
7 L 6 7
C 9 6 C O
C p O
O
O _ 7 C 0 V
y y O
-6 N '> N C C
C
9 N a U
C E O
O
V 3 C 7 0 7 N
i '
A - L > U) > 0
� � U
l0 O_ U L N 9 N O
a O 3 D
E w
7
E N y U N N N
0 C Q C > C C
d I� W M O ifJ I� O O M V O N M V M M (O 6J c0 O 6J O M N N c0 6J (O
O N (O 6J ifJ c0 ifJ c0 O fD M ifJ ifJ ifJ (O O V M N N O O I� � O N ifJ O V c0 ifJ � � M
=w O I� M O 6J N 4Y M M N ifJ N V V ifJ 1� ifJ N M O M O N
M
L d m
U K R
H
� �n c� o rn vco ov N �n r� rn � �no�nrnvr� v co vco �n�vr� rn �nrn N1�
d d O W V O
co O
(O ifJ M M O I� ifJ N W 6J c0 (O V 6J I� ifJ O V ifJ O 6J O N N (O fG
ifJ ifJ V (O ( � ifJ � m 6J O 6J co 6J fD
L d 0 N O N N N N W T c0 A V M (O O (O O
m
(O 6J (O c0 N ifJ � I� M ifJ M V ifJ N M c0 ifJ O I� M I� (O O O N M(O c0 O ifJ c0 M r
N ifJ ifJ I� O O M c0 O V c0 c0 c0 ifJ V N N N (O I� O O V I� O
V (O 6J co V M 6J
R R d M M I� O V (O 6J N 00 M V M c0 ifJ ifJ (O M M (O c0 6J I� O O N � N O W N 4'Y
O V I� ifJ O c V O c0 I� O O M 6J (O 6J O I� O O O W M ifJ N O M
O W c0 ifJ c0 ifJ M N M (O N c0 N (O c0 M "O ifJ m ifJ V N 1�
Q m
(O 6J (O 6J O I� M c0 (O ifJ c0 c0 O M O M O M (O I� (O N ifJ O O
6J V (O (O N c0 ifJ fD 6J c0 A N N N M V V I� N ifJ N O O � 6J c0 O ifJ � � "Me
�y N N ifJ M (O 6J N 6J 1� V ifJ O I� V (O c0 M ifJ (O (O V O ifJ V M M c0 O
O V 6J 6J ifJ (O M 00 ifJ 6J ifJ ifJ 6J c0 I� ifJ O O ifJ M
m
O V "O ifJ O ifJ V N 1�
N y m
6J V (O cf c M 6J 4Y M c0 I� N W N N N I� O ifJ O V O O M c0 O ifJ N C cl
(O O_ I� O M c0 O I� 4Y V � V I� M 6J 6J 6J N (O (O (O N V M M ifJ 6J O_O V M N_M
�y R d ifJ M (O 6J 6J 6J N oo c0 ifJ ifJ O 6J c0 c0 O ifJ I� �V M ifJ c0 M N o0
O V 6J 6J ifJ ifJ N N 00 ifJ 6J ifJ (O 6J ifJ I� ifJ O W ifJ N 6J 6J I� O M (O M O N
N � M c0 ifJ c0 V M N N (O � I� N N V M "O ifJ O ifJ V N N
Q m
C
� H J
y Z ¢
F
0 LU m O
>' U ~O to LU LU
to
U) LL H Q U N cn 0 W
rn z U LU � LC U) O O �
r K
N 0 LL N Z d' fA N N ~ ¢
m ~ F H H O U o2$ W W «S s s W d
(..) 0 U W Z Z N LU N U co N w G D G LU
W W c U H CO H N W W W y y d cn
a � o 0 0 � � Q � w » > a 2 0 c� � 0
N � J J J W w Qw C7 J000CD > > zw S
Z W W W (n W U Z ' Z d' Z
m Z O 0 K H Z H N O K z0 W z U O z = CO W co W W K w 0 < W 0 0 Q W
O ~Qwc � we = z H � O cn ¢ p a � Q � � � a wF zy � � Q z cn
� rn = z � OS D sw � � LU 0~ z0?N
Q ~ N CD OOx O ¢ H a °6 a
M = W z z W U O E O w O � O Q W w� -
Lu
¢c O U of U Q d U O Q Q a O 0 w Q �
z z
Z zzQ O
m Qd co H i
N m „ W ¢ W CO U ¢ m ¢ d d U ¢ ¢ U d > U W ¢ U W ¢ ¢Z ¢ � W y J 9 z
w w Z m�
LL d U
F - 43
y
0 Y
Q
U 3
N O [0
C
LL
C L U U U C
p N L
L N
7 C �
U .0 O _cm 9
0 >j y y Vl Vl 7 N y
.0 N C 00 N C C U N 9 N
7 p — — E N 9 p >
N N Q Q y p
> n L y
O + O 3 0 y .c .� a y
C5 E 9 v o o o °
42 L 7 Y 7 Vl O U N 7 [0 U
y y 0 2i [0 O O
C C O Q C U C Q�, C N
7 7 U L O O D L O O L O E 9 [0 N N L 3
U N {- E N }' E O y E y
> > N o o o m 0 _m y 0 o C 3 cm
O O N Vl r O i0 O p 0 i0 N O VOi N [0 N
0 0 p N O Q p O�'O M 00 i C N N N N
J C C C C E 9
7 7 o ax 9 0 o o m 3 n �
N 9 -0 -6 -6 X -p N p
p i� p 7 p i� C N p 9
y y L 00 O E
N N 3 U N y L .0 L y y L ,N y L '� y N
O U N +- N N +- N N +- N y >
° 0) 3 ca 3 0) 0) a m t cm 3 0 0) o O
m o m o m m o m m m o m
m y y a L o E 3 a y 3 3 y m 3 E 3 3
V0i V0i N N y y -0 N N N N p N p N N p N N N p N N >
E W W 0).0 N [0 U O N [0 [0 [0 [0 [0 [0 [0 [0 O [0 [ w [0 U p
E o m o U U U E 2 U a E
U ° U °
U m (n m m n Q Q Q m Q m m
d (O N ifJ (O M ifJ O W V V O V I� � M (O I� O � ifJ O O V N N ifJ c0 fD M
O M (O O H O N M O O D N ifJ M ifJ O N E M � M I� O O M ifJ ifJ N O O � O fD 4'Y
C w M N M M (O N V ifJ N M c0 M M ifJ V N (O (O c0 M O I� O W M N ifJ M
R y m N N N
t d
U K R
H
rn rn c� cO c� (V ifJ N N co v �n cO o �n co v cO c� cD M
o N c� cO co Co rc
N fD
O w d c0 I� ifJ O V (O I- O O O O M (O O m O V N ifJ O O O M N (O O 4Y
M ifJ N N M M N � N c0 c0 I� O ifJ O ifJ O O
'a (h (h V
U K m M
fR y
O ifJ M M O O c0 O V (O N (O V O M c0 M O M N M ifJ N O c0 I� V fD
(O N V O N (O N ifJ M N (O O ifJ ifJ N c0 (O N (O ifJ (O N ifJ N M c0 ifJ M O) O_
CO O
M ifJ I� N V W O O V ifJ c0 V I� M I� M M V O M I� W O
C = -a ifJ O ifJ O �_V ifJ c0 (O V ifJ I� W M c0 (O c0 c0 O V O M I� (C7 CO M W
O V N ifJ O
Q m M
c0 O O M I� O M N O W c0 I� O ifJ O ifJ W I� O ifJ ifJ N O W In CD W M
O V c0 N V N c0 c0 V ifJ ifJ � N N M ' O ifJ W �
�y d N V (O M N V c0 ifJ (O c0 O M M M N (O O O ifJ O N W M O (O (O O V O M
N y m V M O V N ifJ c0 M
N c0 N N (O M M ifJ "o (O I� V O O O O W ifJ (O M N ifJ I� O O O V M M N O 00
c0 O O V M I� O ifJ O V ifJ ifJ N m V V ifJ m (O M V I� V
M O V V O c0 c0 V ifJ I� �_ifJ � N C O O W c0 O M ifJ V c0 c0 N (O O ' O O H'Y O
�y R N V c0 M N V c0 ifJ (O I� M I� O V O ifJ N M N V O M V ifJ (O O g M
� O V I� M c0 V O (O M ifJ ifJ I� N ifJ W c0 ifJ V c0 O V (O c0 O V c0 I� N V ifJ M O
p C 'a ifJ N ifJ c0 V O �_V M ifJ V (O V CO ifJ N M ifJ ifJ V I� M V O M O N m M
N a m V M O V N ifJ O M
H
Z
W
c a
w
o w ° ti
y 0 0 w w
H
Z
D U w W m =3
>+
in D
U N N ¢
N W W W CO W W
rn N S U p Y w in a
m w a > F cn N < z w X LU
F- CD LU U w C/) FSzwF- z O z U LU IL.6 w w S JI Lu
N O C Z W cn ~ W H y W Z H Z d' H J_ U ~ U W ~
rn a zcn = v ga z zcnw ¢ � w w w z w z zz cn Z
W U S cn O � w z C7 z N 5 N � CO W U Q ¢
3 z z v w w a z c ¢ w z Q z � z J z z z = w
m OU O_ g � � wU K U W O ¢ � zz � z O_ dz Q Q j z Yww = F-
0 c atS ~ Zaw0 c � Ov W Z ~ z � � Q ¢ � z ~ Of z w Of � z ¢ � � zz Q
�+N W ~ J¢ � ¢ F-
LU LU ¢ � wOw � ww O J °Q d z 00 � 00 0 d
N U yz ¢ � � w N mcn a cn 0 z ¢ � xcn U zU � W
Z 7 U Z J J J Z U F W y H Z_ H Qz Z O Q Q K N
E Z O Z ¢ �' cA Z Z Z_ J_ D J_ J_ Z �LJ O_ Z K K Q N H LL W W g 0
3 Z � C.� Z � 0 C7 C CL Lu LL fA9 C7ZUJUU w CL Q oC7 > Q z � 0 w d' QZ_ a LL W
V� m L.L Q Q LL 2 Z J J cA d' LL Z Q cn Q W LL 07 L¢L LL O Q (n d' 4 W d' (n (n
F - 44
C6
C N
N L
[0 [0
9 E O
J N O
L N
U N
7 U
O N
7 V 9 N
� 7 L
O 0 N
a }0 N 7
U L V U N 7 U
a C
C
X 0 N �
N L
N Vl L C6 V 7 N 2i
N C L O 7 U C
L N3 7 N -O -
E N C O 0
0 E - N
9 > LL N 3 = 9
N .� O O
N W 9 N N
N 7 7
7 ._ O O x x C
-Fz C [0 U N y L [0 W N
O L N y O N U O H i
is 3
o E
(D L N N Oi O N Oi 7
C N �' x 4 C N N
0 N N O y 9 "V�i z
_ E ( C N C -
L N N 7 N i N c U
N .-- N N 3i E O V1
l0 O O 9 U > N N i L E
cr,N -6 a N -6 a s a a N N
N
Vl
E [0 U [0 C [0 [0 [0 [0 [0 C
E UO N N N N N N U
Q U U - U U U U U = N
V Q O W O O O O O W 0
d O (O O C0 O O ifJ c0 N 1� O H O W c0 c0 O (O c0 (O O C0 �
O M O O H O N M
t y m
U K R
H
o cO o c� o rn o rn co
N O O O W c0 cO c0 C0 M O O I� W O O c0 O ifJ I� N
� W N C0
O w N O O W c0 c0 ifJ O O N M O O c0 O O O M ifJ C0 V 00
L d 0 N M V O ifJ N O N fD 1� c O
O O c Ln �
N N � fD
U K m N
fR y
O c0 O C0 0 C0 c c0 M O c c O V O O O O N O C0 lc �
O N O ifJ O � 4'Y I� O O ' � Ln O O � O V O � fD W
Q R N I� N O V O c0 N ifJ C0 ifJ O 00 N B O O W O O (O O c0 O ifJ M 00
O N O O O O O W O I� V O N M O O O O O N O W O N N O
O W ifJ N V ifJ � 1� � O O
N = N O N M c0 fD C0 N I� C0 O O M
Q m N N O O N
V O O W O I� C0 I� O W fD fD I�O O O O O V O V O W 0 s
O I� O Ln O O O O M O M ifJ O O O ifJ O O N O c0 O O fD N
-a w+ Ln M O ifJ O C0 N c0 N M lc O c0 O O O c0 O O c0 O O O 0) N" N"
�y d N I� C0 0 ifJ O O M I� W ifJ O O O O O M c0 O O N ifJ N O O 00
O O Ln O Ln O O O Ln N 4'Y O V O V O C0 N O V 0 O W
w O V V I� O I� Ln C0 ifJ O
N d m O N V O m N O N O M O (-
I� N
O W 0 O
V I� O Ln O O O O O M M fD ifJ O O O ifJ O O N O c0 O O fD
O M O V O M O c0 N M N, cO O O O c0 O O c0 O O O O
�y R d O M O ifJ O O O W ifJ O 4Y oo O O O M c0 O O N ifJ N O O 00
O O
p C 'a ifJ M O - c0 ifJ C C0 ifJ c O 0 0 C\ L C0 V (V M O O
N = N O N V O W M N N ifJ C0 O N I� M
Q m N N O O N
Q
.y
0
U
fn Q O d cn w
c O ~ U Of W
t F- co LLuu ¢ W cn w
z Lu cn N F- F W
U W co Lu Lu � mmw y W XwXcnF- ww � w cf) LU CL Z J J J Of W cn d' D >G LU Z Q Z � W 0 W
"a W CO U D U U W �, p W Z W H W 0 J O Z d' LL
ma ¢ m co W > K N Q Q JQ W > LLu z W_ W U LL cn W J
x K J W Cl) 0 W U W �, K k CL W Q �i J Z z O Z Z J
O o J = � � C� - cnNON W w zOQZ W � Q000 w
N U W z Q
Of O d' W Z W W J J W d U cn aj W N z W O
M Nz W C� = JQ � ~ O C7 z � LU of K � � m my o C7
Z z = � w a ¢ z > ¢ ¢ Z Lu W d ¢ � w N ¢ o � J¢ z
U z x d m d z XXX of O O ¢ w 0 0 0 >LU w O O o O
CD m CW7 (D Y UO (D QU DU � � dH � (D F- U` cn JUd 0 0cn co IF.-I 101
F - 45
CITY OF KITCHENER
2014 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER `°
ISSUE: BD03—Work Related Injuries/Illness Claims
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Finance and Corporate Services— Human Resources
PREPARER: Michael Goldrup— Director, Human Resources (519-741-2200 ext. 7117)
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Operating Budget Review on December 12, 2013, staff was asked to provide information
about the City's experience with lost time.
The City has comprehensive safety and disability management programs in place that have
effectively reduced its claim costs by more than $200,000 since 2010. The programs are designed
to educate, inform and support employees both at work and in their personal lives and are
intended to:
• prevent accidents and injuries
• return employees back to work early and safe, therefore reducing financial impacts to
the employee and the employer
• reduce unexpected cost in overtime, loss of productivity, work re-assignment, turnover
• improve employee knowledge, competency, and morale
• help move the City towards a culture of safety excellence
The following injury/illness prevention programs/resources are examples of programs currently
in place that help prevent injuries and manage claims:
• Corporate Safety Strategy 2011-2015 aimed at improving the City's Culture of Safety and
Wellbeing based on Canadian Standards Association Standard for Safety Management
• Comprehensive Safety Program for Compliance and Prevention
• Disability Management Program for both Occupational and Non-Occupational cases
including Early and Safe Return to Work Processes, Work Accommodation Processes, and
Sick Leave Adjudication
• Vehicle and Equipment Safety Program and Training
• Safety Management Training and Workplace Accommodation Training for Management
• Ergonomic Assessment, Training and Tools for Injury Prevention
• Wellness Sessions
• Joint Health and Safety Committees
• Health and Safety Representatives
• Monthly workplace inspections
Through continuous improvement of prevention and return to work programs, the City has and
will continue to experience many of the financial benefits of a safer and healthier workplace,
including reductions in workers' compensation costs and a stronger culture of safety that helps
make Kitchener an employer of choice.
F - 46
CITY OF KITCHENER
2014 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER `°
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Claims/disability management and proactive injury prevention programs have positively
impacted the City's claims experience and reduced both claims costs and lost time from 2010 to
2013 YTD. Ultimately, how claims are managed and prevention is implemented will continue to
impact not only cost and claims for the City of Kitchener but also reduce risk related to
compliance with safety legislation.
The City of Kitchener had the following approved WSIB claims from 2010 to 2013 YTD. Table 1
illustrates the Health Care and Lost Time claims over this time period.
Table 1: City of Kitchener Claims 2010—2013 YTD
City of Kitchener WSIB Claims
70
V) 60
50
0
40
30
E 20
z 10
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 YTD
.All Health Care Claims 53 54 60 45
All Lost Time Claims 54 40 44 37
Fire Health Care 10 4 10 1
m
-Fire Lost Time 10 4 9 4
The City of Kitchener has also showed an overall trend down in the number of Lost Time Days
related to workplace related claims over the same time period. This is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: City of Kitchener Lost Time Days 2010—2013 YTD
City of Kitchener Lost Time Days
500
400
a 300
200ut
100
0
20.10................................. 2011 2012 2013YTD
All Lost Time Days 466.2 275.6 231.2 115.4
Fire Lost Time Days 249.7 48.6 58.6 31.3
-J
Lost time days for claims are within the time period. Does not include days lost for claims carried
over from previous years.
F - 47
CITY OF KITCHENER
2014 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER `°
It is important to note that the severity of the injury greatly effects the lost time days. In the case
of Fire, the lost time in 2010 and 2012 are attributed to only a few cases that had significant
impairment preventing an early and safe return to work. Also, since Fire suppression staff work a
24 hour shift, so each missed shift is counted as 3 days as a day is considered to be 8 hours.
The City of Kitchener Lost Time Incident Rate from 2010 to 2012 as compared to the Human
Resources Benchmarking Network Survey Results of other municipalities shows the City of
Kitchener has a much lower rate than average. Similarly, the lost work hours per employee for
the City of Kitchener from 2010 to 2012 as compared to the Human resources Benchmarking
Network Survey Results of other municipalities shows the City of Kitchener has a much lower
average lost work hours per employee. Both the Lost Incident Rate and Lost Work Hours per
Employee can be found in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3: Municipal Comparison of Lost Time Frequency
Municipal Comparison - Lost Time Frequency
4
3.5
v u ,M
*' 3 ...„., ,
oc 2.5
a
c 2
w
a 1.5
°1 1
0.5
0
2010 2011 2012
Municipal Average(%) 2.82 3.52 2.31
Table 4: Municipal Comparison— Lost Work Hours per Employee
Municipal Comparison - Lost Work Hours Per
Employee
CL
E 4
W
i
N
a 3
V)
L
0 2 .room
0000
0 1
V,
2010 2011 2012
Municipal Average 3.11 3.44 2.33
—City of Kitchener... 2.17 1.34 1.56
F - 48
CITY OF KITCHENER
2014 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER `°
Costs related to both health care and lost time claims have decreased from 2010—2013 YTD.
Proactive and cooperative approaches to both claims and disability management and a strong
early and safe return to work approach have contributed to this decrease as shown in Table 5.
.
Table 5: Costs of claims from 2010 to 2013 YTD
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
300,000.00
250,000.00
200,000.00
41
0 150,000.00
o
100,000.00
a
50,000.00 Np
mN
0N0N0N0NbRbl;,bN ��✓b
0.00
2010 2011 2012 2013 YTD
Corporate Claim Costs 281,528.28 104,091.00 187,141.47 45,223.84
Fire Claim Costs 75,136.18 17,892.61 146,262.98 10,323.24
Note: Costs reflect heath care and lost time costs for claims in the current year. Fees and costs
carried over from previous years not included. 2013 billing for health care costs have lag time.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Between 2010 and 2013 the City's lost time and health care costs, when comparing cost claims in
the time period has been reduced by over$200,000. Studies have shown the cost of an actual
claim only represents a small portion (10%) of the true cost of the injury. Although the costs
related to claims in the current year are showing a trend down, costs from claims from previous
years, and administrative and physician fees continue over time inflating the total cost to the
City. Also, costs occur over a time period and can carry over from year to year, in some cases
until the claimant reaches the age of 65. Many more indirect costs are incurred through each
workplace injury such as damage, overtime, productivity or other insurance claims. Reducing the
impact and likelihood of injuries and illness in the workplace can reduce cost of claims and
indirect costs of accidents, but it can also decrease the risk of fines, sanctions, and other negative
implications related to compliance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Continuing to develop and support injury/illness prevention programs and strengthen The City's
culture of safety and well-being will result in workers suffering fewer injuries and illnesses. To
adequately continue to reduce claims and costs and also comply with legislation, ongoing effort
and resources are required to proactively support prevention and disability management
resources. Through continuous improvement of prevention and return to work programs, the
City has and will continue to experience many of the financial benefits of a safer and healthier
workplace including reductions in workers' compensation costs and a stronger culture of safety
that helps make Kitchener an employer of choice.
F - 49
ISSUE: BD04— Use of Overtime and Absenteeism/Paid Sick Time - REVISED
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: All
PREPARER: Michael Goldrup— Director, Human Resources (519-741-2200 ext. 7117)
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Operating Budget Review on December 12, 2013, staff was asked to provide further
information on overtime and absenteeism. This issue paper has been updated to include 2013
overtime information, comparative information published in a City of Guelph review of overtime,
and additional information on Fire sick time.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Overtime
The table below shows the actual overtime and budgeted overtime figures for all City
departments for the last four years.
Overtime as Annual
Overtime a % of Total Overtime
Year Paid Payroll Budget
2010 $ 2,493,706 3.09% $ 1,550,238
2011 $ 2,636,228 3.23% $ 1,516,767
2012 $ 1,764,574 2.01% $ 1,480,728
2013 $ 1,949,938 1.83% $ 1,637,048
Overtime is monitored by management within divisions and corporately by the Corporate
Leadership Team. The need for overtime is difficult to predict as seasonal demands on programs
are the main driver, in addition to the pressure on staff to meet increasing service demands with
no addition of staff in many parts of the organization over many years.
Management continues to make efforts to manage the use of overtime, and to ensure that it is
tied to valued service outcomes.
The following summarizes the general provisions that are common across the City of Kitchener
collective agreements.
Overtime must be approved in advance by supervision/management.
Types of overtime:
a) Continuation of work day: this would be characterized as work that is typically a
continuation of an employee's normal work day and is work that could not be
completed within the normal days scheduled hours and cannot be left for completion
on the next scheduled shift;
b) Scheduled overtime: work that for varying operational reasons (e.g. equipment, public
safety, required utility shutoffs etc.) cannot be performed during regularly scheduled
hours;
F - 50
c) Emergency overtime: work that could not be anticipated or must be attended to for
service or safety reasons (e.g. immediate weather related work, equipment or
infrastructure failure, CVOR requirements, etc.);
d) Overtime resulting from on-call or standby: closely tied to emergency overtime, various
operations place employees on standby or on-call in order to response to situations
occurring outside of normal scheduled operating hours.
MUNI'CI'PAL RIENCHIMARK DATA
Total l Total OT Q/o of Total l Standby 0/0
Salllairies & Overtime Base Ray Standby of Base Pay
Wages
Guelllllph $89,2.09,3:31 Cash 4.07611/o $172,514 .1911/0
012 $3,622,356
Pop. Non-Cash
121,688 828 779
Guelph $57,288,772 Cash . ,
M $2,921,308 4. m
8 months
$82,750,449 u
574,337 5.1 %
Full Year $4,219,666,
ftwecast
131111liington $72,086,085 Cash 1.8511/o $444,933 .b2l/o
Pop. 164,41.5 $1,330,0701
Non-Cash
$682,637
City of $43, 71.5,5407 889t ,278 2.0211i/ $121,2070 .2811/n
Waterloo
Pop. 129,100
Halton, $23.5,313,129 $8,771,369 3.7311/o $881,396 .371%
Region
Pop. 505,678
Hanfullltoin $53.3,300,330 $7,898,743 1.4311/o $1,92.9,327 .3011/6
Pop. 535,234
Sudbuiry $71,881,0724 $4,013,385 5.,5311/1 2288312 .301/1
Pop. 160,274
Cambridge $44,658,942 $1,393,4:32 3.1211/o $257,628 .58%
Pop. 132,900
Wellington $34,512,297 61%
County
Pop. 94,628
Kitchener 123,482,679 Cash 1.2011// 247,6077 .200/6
1,4807,728
Pop. 234,'.1.070 Non-Cash
882,931
From the City of Guelph's Internal Audit Report on Overtime October 31, 2013
NOTE: Kitchener figures quoted are 2012 budget figures
F - 51
Absenteeism/Paid Sick Time
Paid sick time is trending well below the municipal average that is sourced from the Human
Resources Benchmarking Network annual survey. The survey does not include Fire, so there is no
average for this employee group. Fire is shown separately below.
Paid Sick Days Per Eligible Employee (Based on 7 hour day)
Municipal Average City of Kitchener
2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012
Days 10 9 11 8 8 8
Hours 69.2 61.9 75.8 57.2 58.2 55.5
Total Cost I 1 1 $1,729,945 1 $1,811,983 1 $1,887,707
Fire— Paid Sick Days Per Eligible Employee
Suppression Non-Suppression
(Based on 12 hour day) (Based on 7 hour day)
2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012
Days 7 6 6 2 4 5
Hours 85.6 75.6 69.7 15.8 25.9 33.9
Fire payroll postings are not separated into sick days, so providing the total cost for Fire is not
feasible.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
F - 52
CITY OF KITCHENER
2014 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER `°
ISSUE: BDOS— Business Planning New Corporate Projects
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Office of the CAO— Integrated Planning
PREPARER: Laurie Majcher, Manager of Strategy& Business Planning
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Operating Budget Review on December 12, 2013, staff was asked to provide information
about the 10 new Corporate Projects identified on page 2-3 of report CAO-13-039 Proposed City
of Kitchener 2014-2016 Business Plan. The information requested includes where these projects
show up in the budget and when previous staff reports have come forward to Council.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Reports Project Name Budget Page Reference Timing of Previous
2015-2018 Strategic Funding is provided in the Corporate CAO-13-027, Oct 21, 2013
Plan Plan existing balance (page C-81) and
2014 capital budget (page C-107)
Start-up Landing Pad Funding is provided in the Downtown CAO-13-036, Nov 18, 2013
Program Incentives existing balance (page C-80)
and 2014 capital budget (page C-109)
SAP Customer Funding is provided in the FCS-13-126, Sept 9, 2013
Relationship & Billing Enhancements to Tax/Utility System FCS-12-176, Nov 5, 2012
(CIS Replacement) existing balance (page (page C-81) and FCS-12-040, Mar 19, 2012
2014 capital budget (page C-114).
Issue Paper Cap 02 (page C-92)
Water& Sanitary To be completed with existing staff N/A
Sewer Rate Structure resources, no new funding requested.
Review
Land Disposition To be completed with existing staff CSD-13-047, May 27, 2013
(Rockway RFP & resources, no new funding requested.
Parking Lots 16, 3 & 6)
Municipal Partnership Additional revenues possible in 2014 as CSD-13-105, Dec 2, 2013
Program outlined in issue paper AR 03 Increased
Advertising Revenue through
Sponsorship Strategy (page 0-98)
Neighbourhood Funding is provided in the CSD-13-082, Aug 21, 2013
Strategy Neighbourhood Development Strategy
existing balance (page C-82). No new
funding requested.
People Plan Roll-out To be completed with existing staff CAO-12-044, Dec 3, 2012
resources, no new funding requested
Corporate Greenhouse To be completed with existing staff CSD-13-108, Nov 18, 2013
Gas Reductions resources, no new funding requested
2-Way GO Transit To be completed with existing staff CAO-12-045, Oct 22, 2012
Service resources, no new funding requested
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
F - 53
ISSUE: BD06— Boulevard Tree Donations
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services - Operations
PREPARER: Greg Hummel, Manager, Park Planning, Development &Operations
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Operating Budget Review on December 12, 2013, staff was asked to provide additional
information and clarification on the possibility of residents donating trees for planting to replace
boulevard trees removed because of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB).
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The City has been preparing for EAB for a number of years. With the completion of the street and
active parkland tree inventory, the City now knows the location of all ash trees on these lands.
Knowing where ash trees are is the first step in managing this issue. The options to manage EAB
continue to change based on the knowledge gained from other municipalities and advances in
scientific research. Chemical injections and preserving the mature ash tree canopy are two areas
receiving more attention. Recognizing the constantly changing variables, the EAB Strategy will
need to be adapted and reviewed annually.
A draft master tree planting plan for neighbourhoods impacted by EAB will be developed and
shared through public meetings to seek community input and will be the basis for the decisions
on which trees get planted where and by whom. The master tree planting plan will eliminate
mono-cultures and create a more diverse urban canopy of larger stature trees.
The City of Kitchener has 4,500 ash trees along city street and has started to actively remove
them to minimize risks associated with the declining health of the trees. Removals started in
January of 2013 through ward 4 and will continue in ward 6 and the abutting wards in January of
2014. Tree removals and injections have been allocated through the ten year capital budget
forecast, but stumping and re-planting of boulevard trees has not yet been addressed.
One option under consideration is to advance boulevard tree re-planting by accepting donations
toward the replacement of trees removed due to the EAB infestation. Once the stump has been
removed, a new tree could then be planted in that location.
In discussion with the Canada Revenue Agency, they have indicated that donations for a tree to
be planted on City property could be eligible for a tax receipt from the City of Kitchener. The cost
to replace a boulevard tree ranges from $500-$700 per tree depending on the species of tree
that is being planted. The species would be determined by the master tree planting plan that will
be developed for that area.
A communication plan will need to be created so that residents are aware of the program and
the opportunity that would be available to the residents. The City would accept any donation
amount for the Replacement Tree Fund and will determine the species and location priority
based on the master tree planting plan.
F - 54
To encourage participation in the program, Council could consider an incentive plan which would
match resident donations. This Replacement Tree Fund program could be set up to augment our
overall replacement strategy as capital planting funds becomes available and enhance and speed
up the opportunity to get trees into the ground for the benefit of our entire city. There is
currently no City budget for any matching fund program.
Further, the City would encourage the participation of all residents and businesses which may not
have been directly impacted by EAB but are interested in supporting the overall urban forest
canopy preservation for the benefit of all residents in Kitchener.
Additional options will continue to be assessed through discussion with other municipalities as
EAB impacts the province.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Donation program - No financial impact other than the staffing time needed to issue tax receipts
and administer and manage the program.
Matching fund program — The financial impact would depend on the parameters set by Council
for the matching fund program.
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to further investigate options for tree planting donations and report back
to Committee.
F - 55
ISSUE: BD07 — Economic Development Investment Fund (EDIF) Update
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Department of the CAO, Economic Development
PREPARER: Rod Regier, Executive Director of Economic Development
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Operating Budget Review on December 12, 2013, staff was asked to provide a brief
update to the EDIF Impact Analysis prepared for Council in May, 2013. A more thorough analysis
is scheduled to be undertaken by a third party consultant in mid-2014.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The success of EDIF is now best reflected through significant private sector activity, especially
related to the Communitech Hub. This demonstrates that EDIF investments provided the
necessary catalyst to stimulate wealth-generating private investment. Between 2010 and 2012,
there were 863 startups associated with the Hub, and another 60 companies established through
the University of Waterloo's Velocity program. The Hub has helped attract $350 million in equity
investments, and Velocity startups have raised over$100 million in funding.
Since 2012, startups graduating from the Hub have created demand for nearby office space. The
resulting redevelopment activity created construction jobs, and is driving assessment growth
through reuse of underutilized space. Other spinoffs include increased demand for downtown
restaurants, retail and services. The residential market also became more attractive, resulting in
the launch of two major projects: City Centre and One Victoria Condominiums.
Objective 1: Stimulate assessment growth
Properties that benefited directly from EDIF investment, or were in close proximity to these
investments, demonstrate an increase in the growth rate of their assessed values, which grew by
about $9.5 million per year prior to the implementation of EDIF. After EDIF was launched, the
total assessed value of these properties rose by an average of$14.2 million per year. These
properties were worth $167.8 million in 2004 and are now collectively worth $296.3 million.This
does not reflect the market value adjustments still to come, especially in residential
development. The market value of the first phase of City Centre Condominiums is expected to be
approximately$57 million, and One Victoria Condominiums is expected to be worth $61 million.
These two projects will combine to generate approximately$450,000 in annual City of Kitchener
tax revenue—a 33 fold increase.
Objective 2: Stimulate employment
Noteworthy office developments include the conversion of upper-storey space in the Simpson
Block on King Street to accommodate Vidyard. Thalmic Labs will occupy 24 Charles Street, which
underwent a $400,000 interior renovation to house one of North America's hottest startups.
Downtown office space attracted high-profile tenants in 2013, with Motorola and Square (Twitter
cofounder Jack Dorsey's newest startup) setting up offices in the Breithaupt Block. Perimeter
Development also acquired 305 King St W, intending to modernize the building. The proximity of
F - 56
this office tower to the Tannery has made it an attractive location for graduating Hub startups,
include TribeHR (acquired by Netsuite in 2013). There are approximately 530 employees in small
technology companies occupying over 60,000 sq.ft. of space in downtown holdings outside the
Tannery. The Tannery itself now houses approximately 1500 employees.
The demand for downtown space has pushed the average asking lease rate for office space up to
$14.53/sq.ft. in 2013 from $11.81/sq.ft. in 2012. This also reflects the increase in Class A office
space. The vacancy rate rose both downtown (12.6%) and city-wide (10.2%) in 2013, reflecting
the increase in available space in the core, as new office inventory was created at the Briethaupt
Block, and the time lag to occupancy.
The Downtown restaurant and retail cluster also continued its expansion in 2013 with new
businesses including GoGo Mart, Zoup, Cheeses Murphy, and more. A group of specialty shops
has sprung up on Ontario Street including 2013 additions Stylfrugal, and Flourish Florals, as well
as nearby'More Than Half' clothing and Artisan Zone on King Street.
Objective 3: Stimulate development of residential units in the Downtown
Construction has begun on two major condominium projects, City Centre and One Victoria.The
first phase of City Centre is a 17-storey tower with 203 units of residential, a number of
commercial units on the ground floor and two levels of underground parking. One Victoria
features a 19-storey tower with 205 residential units, commercial units at grade, plus two below-
grade levels and six above grade levels of parking. Upon completion, these projects can
accommodate about 735 residents, which would result in a 35% core population increase.
While the construction value of residential permits in downtown neighbourhoods fell from $28.3
million in 2012 to $14.6 million in 2013, this reflects the timing of permit issuance. City Centre
Condominiums and One Victoria only had shoring permits issued in 2013 (valued at $860,000
combined); as such, residential permits will rise considerably when these projects have
construction permits issued. Each of these projects has a greater value than the total
construction value of combined residential permits in any of the past 13 years.
Conclusion
The impact of the investment EDIF stimulated extends beyond employment and assessment
growth. It has also resulted in a transformation of the urban brand of the City. In 2013, regional,
national and international press reported the new identity, with a New York Times headline
reading: "A Snowier Silicon Valley in Blackberry's Backyard". Momentum continues to build with
new projects in the planning stage. Strong growth in residential, office and retail is expected to
continue through 2014 to the commencement of the ION LRT service in 2017 and beyond.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
F - 57
ISSUE: BD08— Economic Development Strategic Initiatives Fund
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Department of the CAO, Economic Development
PREPARER: Rod Regier, Executive Director of Economic Development
BUDGET IMPACT: $150,000 annually
BACKGROUND:
2013 was the final year in the Economic Development Investment Fund (EDIF). Its success
challenges the City of Kitchener to consider support for further catalytic investments in the local
economy. During Operating Budget Review on December 12, 2013, staff was asked to provide a
list of investment opportunities that can advance the City's economic development strategy by
leveraging approximately$150,000 reallocated from alternative revenue proposals. Two classes
of investment opportunities present themselves: smaller pilot projects generally less than
$500,000, and longer term capital projects greater than $1,000,000. This report addresses the
former. A complementary report on the renewal of the Economic Development Reserve Fund will
be brought forward for Council consideration in late winter.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The City of Kitchener Economic Development Strategy (KEDS) outlines a program that positions
the City's economy to compete globally for talent and investment. The KEDS framework provides
a road map for future investments. Each leverages established partnerships to achieve maximum
impact. The following projects could benefit if annual funding of$150,000 is provided. What
follows is a very general description of 9 concepts, with very high-level funding estimates:
Startup City: California Office— Partner with Communitech to establish a market liaison service
for startup tech and digital media companies in California. Kitchener based companies have
benefited from access to mentorship, capital and market opportunities in Silicon Valley. In 2013,
Kitchener startups raised $20.5 million from primarily California venture capital companies.
Additional startup investment from acquisitions by California based tech companies have
triggered accelerated growth opportunities and helped create over 100 Kitchener tech jobs.
Proposed investment: $50,000 per year for 3 years; 17% of total annual project cost: $300,000.
Cluster Building: Manufacturing— Partner with UW Velocity to establish a manufacturing startup
incubator in Kitchener. Velocity is Canada's most successful university startup accelerator. Over
60 firms are being incubated in the program Velocity startups are landing in downtown Kitchener
as they graduate. This facility would help create an entirely new generation of Kitchener based
manufacturing businesses ranging from wearable devices (i.e. Thalmic Labs) to business and
consumer products hardware (i.e. BufferBox, Mappedin). Proposed investment: $50,000 per year
for a 3 year period. This represents 5% of the total annual project cost $1,000,000.
Cluster Building: Digital Content— Partner with the Kitchener Studio Project, Communitech,
Education Institutions, Creative Enterprise Initiative, and OMDC to establish a digital content
accelerator program to support emerging artists (music, visual art, animation, film, game
development, etc.) and drive growth in the local creative cluster. Proposed Investment $50,000
per year for 3 years. This represents 25% of the total annual project cost: $200,000.
F - 58
Cluster Building: Music Cluster— Partner with Canadian Cultural Spaces Program to develop a
feasibility study of a music business resource centre in Kitchener. Proposed Investment $25,000.
Total project cost $50,000.
Cluster Building: Film—Collaborate with OMDC and regional partners to support an integrated
film cluster strategy. This strategy would attract film projects to Kitchener, support the local film
industry, and raise the city's profile as a destination for filming. Proposed investment: $20,000
Total Project Cost: $40,000.
Talent Strategy: Tech Bus— Both established and startup tech companies in Kitchener require
access to the large talent pool in the GTA to support growth. Established tech companies already
have buses bringing their staff from Toronto. Smaller, startup companies do not have the critical
mass to purchase this service. Communitech has been asked by its members to coordinate a
"tech bus" as an express commuter service from Toronto. Programmed to be self-sustaining after
the 3rd year, the service would establish demand for a 2-way, all day GO train service. Proposed
investment: $50,000 per year for three years, 5%of total annual project cost: $1,000,000
Dynamic Downtown: Music Cluster— Partner with the Downtown Kitchener BIA and local venue
operators to facilitate the growth of a live music scene in Downtown Kitchener. Project
objectives: (1) establish Downtown as hotbed of live music; (2) encourage participation of as
many operators and venue types as possible; and (3) build relationships between venue
operators and the live music community. The target: 300 performances per year. Proposed City
investment: $30,000, 25% of the total annual project cost $120,000.
Dynamic Downtown: Downtown Shuttle— Kitchener's downtown is evolving rapidly, with new
office, residential and retail development underway. However, development is unevenly
distributed, resulting in poor performance in some key resources (i.e. parking structures) and
businesses. A 'hop on, hop off' style downtown shuttle would help move people around the
downtown quickly and improve the distribution of benefits, including utilization of parking
infrastructure and retail. Proposed Economic Development investment $100,000 per year.This
represents 33% of the total annual operating cost: $300,000 annually.
Innovation District: Brand Development and Marketing— Partner with the Downtown Kitchener
BIA and developers in the Innovation District to develop a promotional package and advertising
program to leverage growing interest in the District as a desirable location for creative office and
residential development. Proposed City Investment $25,000; total project cost $75,000.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
$150,000 to be allocated in the 2014 operating budget to an Economic Development Strategic
Initiatives Fund to provide seed funding to key partnership projects that advance the KEDS.
RECOMMENDATION:
For Council direction.
F - 59
ISSUE: BD09 — Postage Charges
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Finance and Corporate Services - Revenue Division
PREPARER: Saleh Saleh, Supervisor of Collections and Payment Processing
(519-741-2200 extension 7346)
BUDGET IMPACT: Tax Base - $50,000; Enterprise -$43,000
BACKGROUND:
On December 11, 2013, Canada Post announced it will dramatically increase the cost of postage
effective March 31, 2014. The current 2014 proposed operating budget does not account for this
unforeseen increase in postage being proposed by Canada Post.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The 2014 budget for postage is currently set at $830,741. A large percentage (70%) of the
postage budget relates to costs of mailing out property tax and utility bills.
As a result of the postage rate increase announced by Canada Post, it is expected that the cost of
mailing out a property tax or utility bill will go up by an average of 15%to 19% depending on the
weight of the item.
To properly budget for the increased cost of postage, the 2014 budget for postage would need to
be increased by$93,000 (Tax Base - $50,000; Enterprise- $43,000). This amount reflects the
increased costs of postage for 9 months beginning March 31, 2014. A further increase would
need to be allowed for in 2015 to annualize the costs for the remaining 3 months.
If the increase in budget allocation is not approved, it will result in a new chronic shortfall in the
City's postage budget beginning in 2014.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Tax based operating budget would increase by$50,000 with a corresponding net levy impact.
The Enterprise based operating budget would increase by$43,000, spread across four utilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
For Council direction.
F - 60
ISSUE: BD10—Summary of Public Input
FUND: Operating and Capital
DEPARTMENT: Finance and Corporate Services— Financial Planning
PREPARER: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
Public engagement continued to be a significant area of focus for the 2014 budget process. Both
traditional and electronic methods of engagement were employed again this year, allowing for a
number of different input points into the budget process. The efforts taken and the
corresponding results are summarized below.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
1) Ask an Expert
In December, staff conducted an Ask an Expert session focused on the 2014 Budget. Ask an
Expert is a series of one-hour Facebook events which allow citizens to interact directly with City
personnel on specific subjects. The questions and answers of the budget session are attached.
2) Interactive Budget Website
In November staff launched an interactive budget website that includes an online calculator to
help residents understand the impact of budget changes on their property taxes. As of January 7,
the interactive website had 234 hits, and resulted in 3 residents submitting their preferences for
alternative revenues and strategic initiatives. The submissions have been summarized and the
comments have been attached.
3) Other Feedback Channels
Staff has solicited feedback via e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, voice-mail and regular mail.
The City was tagged in one tweet about the 2014 budget which also linked to the online budget calculator:
"@glsssgrl: @CityKitchener has a budget calculator to show what they need to consider for the
2014 budget. That's transparency!http://t.col682b2nNiti"
One letter has been received and is attached for Council's information.
4) Public Input Night
On January 13, 2014, the City held a public input night where citizens could address Council. In
total seven delegations spoke before Council on the following topics:
• Reducing the amount of City vehicle traffic coming into Victoria Park (x4)
• Limiting tax and user rate increases (x2)
• Increasing City advertising opportunities and making all parking at the Aud paid (x1)
A full video recording of the meeting is available on the City website.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
F - 61
Ask An Expert Questions and Answers
How do Kitchener's taxes compare to other cities? Locally and across the province?
For Ontario cities over 100,000 in population, Kitchener has the third lowest taxes. Locally,
Kitchener has the lowest tax burden in the Region of Waterloo (lower than Waterloo and
Cambridge).
When can the public talk to council about the 2014 budget?
There is a special Finance and Corporate Services meeting dedicated solely to the 2014 budget
on January 13 in the evening. If citizens want to address Council, they should contact the Clerks
office to sign up. http://kitchener.ca/.../insidec.../RegisterAsADelegation.asp
Are there other ways the public can provide input if they can't make it on Jan. 13?
Yes, there are many options available to the public like responding to Facebook and Twitter
postings about the budget, or contacting the City through email or phone. One of the best ways
though is to use the Budget Calculator that shows the impact on your individual taxes. All of the
information can be found on the Budget webpage http://kitchener.ca/en/insidecitvhall/2014-
Budget.asp
What is the proposed tax rate increase for 2014?
1.17%, which works out to $11.86 a year to the average Kitchener homeowner with an assessed
value of$258,000.
Has this rate been approved? Is this just the municipal increase?
This has not been approved yet. Council will finalize the budget on January 30 after hearing
from citizens at a Public Input night on January 13th. And yes, this is only the City increase.The
Region sets their own budget, separate from the City.
What methods are being considered to reduce taxes?
Council is considering Alternative Revenue options that could reduce the tax rate increase by
0.15%. Some of them include increased cost recoveries for Bylaw and Engineering work and
additional advertising revenues. Additional details can be found on the City's budget
page. http://kitchener.ca/en/insidecitvhall/2014-Budget.asp
How are property taxes divided between the region and city?
Property taxes are paid to the City, but are then divided between the City, Region and School
Board. In 2013, the split was 51%to the Region, 32%to Kitchener and 17%to the School Board.
F - 62
Interactive Budget Website Summary
1) Responses to making no changes to the proposed budget
Respondent No
1 N
2 N
3 N
2) Responses to Alternative Revenue proposals
Special Bylaw Sponsorship Mobile User Engineering Subdivision
Respondent . Advertising Catering Fees Fees Review
1 N N N N N N N
2 N N N Y N Y N
3 N Y Y N Y Y Y
3) Responses to Strategic Initiative proposals
S101 S102 S103 04
Mobile Bylaw
Respondent . Technology Data Tree Mtce
1 N N N Y
2 N N N N
3 N Y Y N
4) Respondent comments
Respondent Comments
I do like this new way of participating in the budget process. Secondly, I think it is
very important that our City be fiscally responsible, so limiting the tax increase to
1 about 1.25%is a very worthwhile goal.Thirdly, I voted yes for Proactive Street Tree
Maintenance because ourtrees an important contributorto an environmentally
friendly city and they add a lot to the beauty of our city.
2
3
F - 63
Allan eaupre'
Chartered Accountant
Allan Beaupree C.A.
490 Dutton Drive
November 25, 2013 suite e3
Waterloo,Ontario
N2L 61-17
The Mayor and Councilors of Telephone(519)884-4690
The City of Kitchener, Facsimile(519)725-2484
C/o City Hall,
Kitchener, Ontario,
It is hard to believe that another year has passed and that it is budget time again.
I would be remiss if I did not take the time to participate in the process by making my
comments known. They follow the same theme as last year.
I believe that the deep recession of 2008 set us on a new and very different course; one
that will change the way we live forever. Those that do not adapt or are slow to adapt will
be left behind. I see it in daily with my clients.
According to the latest numbers some 300,000 jobs have disappeared in Ontario. This
should not surprise us in the Region as we see Maple Leaf leaving and Blackberry
fighting for its survival.
Unemployment will remain high for the foreseeable future.
Governments must change if they want their communities to prosper.
Rather than following the traditional process of having staff present a budget that they
know is too high and council tweaking it to get to an acceptable mill rate, I hope that
council will spend more time developing a strategic plan.
Develop a plan that looks as far into the future as possible. One that defines what is
affordable and what is not. One that stresses infrastructure above all else. One that uses
the private sector to carry out services where applicable. One that shrinks the size of
government and is respectful of every taxpayer dollar.
Since wages and salaries represent a substantial portion of the budget a strong plan will
require long and painful discussions with the unions and the staff that they represent.
Without these discussions no meaningful change is possible.
I am not optimistic about the future of our province. The government of Ontario has to
borrow money every year just to pay the interest on our burgeoning debt. Even the
finance minister is back peddling from a balanced budget by 2017. The lending
community will tire of this lack of action and eventually force the Province into
F - 64
balancing the budget. And the Province will react by reducing transfers to municipalities
as a way to cut expenditures.
There is a tsunami of seniors like me that will be retiring during the next five years.
Affordable property taxes will be high on the agenda and with time on our hands we will
be vocal and active in selecting a council that shares our vision.
For the naysayers that believe change is not possible I urge to look at the companies such
as Ford. Prior to the great recession they started to reduce their costs and the price of their
cars. They asked suppliers to take a 14%reduction in pricing for several years. The
suppliers that adapted thrived; those that said no were left behind. Today the company
builds better, longer lasting cars at the same or lower price.
My simple advice to you is spend much more time discussing how our city will look
twenty years from now, and leave staff to deal with operating issues such as the
Boathouse.
I challenge you to get out of your comfort zone and really dwell on the future. Demand
that staff do the same thing. Redefine what the role of a city government should be given
the new demands of an international economy. Have a healthy open debate on what role
the private sector should play in providing better services at a lower cost.
The Kitchener that I have spent all of my life is has been known for its progressive
thinking. Take your leadership to a new level in 2014 and beyond by redefining what city
government is.
To all of you that have served the last three years thank you. To those of you seeking re-
election I wish you good luck.
F i
� CPA CA
F - 65
ISSUE: BD11 —Storm Water Rate Scenarios
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: INS— Engineering
PREPARER: Nick Gollan, Manager, Storm water Utility
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Operating Budget Review on December 12, 2013, staff was asked to provide storm water
projections for a 1%or 2% rate increase instead of 3%.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Storm water rates are established based on overall program costs and a 10 year forecast of
capital and operating costs (see report DTS-10-100, Appendix B) to provide a sustainable level of
service based on the best information available at the time.
In October 2013, Council received the Corporate Asset Management Program Update (report
INS-13-100) which included a review of storm water assets and the long term (to the year 2093)
lifecycle costs associated with maintaining and replacing existing storm water assets.This study
included SWM pipes, SWM facilities, and oil-grit separators (OGS), but did not include another
significant asset category, stream reaches, due to the availability of information at the time of
this study. Stream reaches are a significant component of the overall storm water network and
there are ongoing remedial works on stream reaches that will need to be funded in the long
term.
The study determined the current funding level and 3% rate increases over the next 10 years was
adequate to manage storm water assets over the next decade, however a strategy would need to
be determined to address deficits that will have accumulated by 2023 in the amount of$24M for
SWM pipes, $6M for SWM facilities, and $3.4M for OGS. Having appropriate funding in place to
manage the City's SWM assets is aligned with the City's Strategic Plan, specifically being a
community that focuses significant energy and resources on becoming more environmentally
friendly and having long term corporate financial stability.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
If the 2014 SWM rate increase is less than 3%, it will undermine the ability for the City to
responsibly manage storm water infrastructure. Additionally, the utility is currently in a deficit
position and projected to be out of deficit by 2017 with 3% rate increases. Reducing the 2014
SWM rate increase to 1% or 2%would extend the deficit beyond 2018 or require the need to
defer planned work. As much of the planned work (e.g. OGS maintenance, SWM facility
rehabilitation) is a requirement under existing Certificates of Approval (now Environmental
Compliance Approvals), not completing this work exposes the City to increased risk and potential
fines for non-compliance.
Table 1 below shows the ending balance in the SWM Stabilization reserve fund for different rate
scenarios of 1%, 2%, and 3% across all years of the forecast.
F - 66
Table 1: SWM Stabilization Reserve Fund Projected Balance
Rate Increase 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
3% (928) (1,554) (61) 800 510
2% (1,030) (1,888) (768) (433) (1,414)
1% (1,132) (2,220) (1,466) (1,643) (3,290)
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
F - 67
Final Budaet Day - Capital Issue Paper (IP) Index
Included in
IP # Description Proposed
Budget?
BD20 General Capital Questions No
BD21 Council Home Office &Technology Budget No
BD22 Public Art Fund Balances No
BD23 Fire Communications Equipment No
BD24 Park &Trail General Provision Work Plans No
BD25 Synthetic Turf Funding Reallocation No
BD26 Woodside Park - Synthetic Fields Update No
BD27 Cenotaph &Vogelsang Green No
BD28 Civic District Urban Square No
BD29 Charles & Water Parking Garage No
BD30 Traffic Calming Reduction No
BD31 Margaret Avenue Bridge Replacement - Funding Sources No
BD32 Engineering Studies No
F - 68
ISSUE: BD20—General Capital Questions
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Various
PREPARER: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was asked to provide responses to a
number of questions. The questions contained in this issue paper lend themselves to a concise
response, so they have been combined into a single issue paper to reduce the number of
individual issue papers being provided to Council.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
1. What are the capital projects that add up to $68,000 of capital closeouts?
Tax Supported Capital Closeouts in 2013
Dept. Div. Description Amount
CAO Communications Printing Shop Billing System $40,000
FCS Revenue Cheque Remittance Processing system 19,008
CSD CPS Admin Community Development Infrastructure 6,515
CSD Program Resource Services Graffiti Program 586
CSD Building Kitchener Green Housing Program 2,000
Total $68,109
2. What are the funds in Corporate Plan used for?
Funds in this account are used for both ongoing and one-time expenditures related to
corporate strategy and corporate culture. Some examples from the past three years include:
Ongoing:
Leadership Development
Organizational Development
Employee Culture Survey(next planned for 2015)
People Plan — Refresh as well as development and implementation plan
Strategic Plan (other than community survey)
One-time:
Organizational Design Review
Regional Economic Development Studies (portion of)
F - 69
3. What are the plans for the existing funds and budget for PeopleSoft?
The PeopleSoft capital budget covers ongoing expenses for technical and functional training
as well as project support required to maintain and upgrade the Human Resources
Management System (HRMS). The roadmap for the system outlines a work plan for the next
several years to ensure that the limited funds are prioritized and invested carefully.
Implementation of the Performance Management module is tentatively planned for 2014 for
which training and project support will be required. Other upcoming projects such as the
Absence Management and Workflow modules will require similar investment.
4. Confirm the amount of the proceeds from selling the Elmsdale property that was included
in the budget for the Kitchener Operations Facility (KOF). What is the expected
surplus/deficit on this project?
The Kitchener Operations Facility capital project account is currently showing a deficit of
approximately$7.5 million. The sale of two properties; Elmsdale (net proceeds estimated at
$7.4M) and a small portion of Battler Yards remain outstanding. In addition, the City has yet
to receive the grant portion of the funding allocation from the Green Municipal Fund as it is
subject to the approval of final environmental reports. It is reasonable to expect that the
deficit currently shown in the KOF capital account will be eliminated through a combination
of land sales and grant dollars received.
S. Provide a listing of ongoing creek rehabilitation projects planned for 2015.
There are two anticipated projects that will use this funding and are described below:
1) Hidden Valley Creek— Hydraulic Study required to determine the impact of future
development on existing watercourse due to increased runoff.
2) Balzer Creek—Sanitary sewer exposed due to the movement of the existing creek
over the existing sanitary sewer alignment posing a threat to sanitary sewer
infrastructure, private property and the natural environment in the event of a sewer
failure or further erosion in the creek adjacent to private property.
The costs for these two projects will be reviewed and updated as part of the 2014
development Charges Background Study update.
6. How are Quality of Estimates used in budgeting? How can the City better estimate project
costs to mitigate overspending in future projects?
For Engineering/Utility projects, contingencies are included in the budget figures. This means
that if a project is noted as a Class C, the budget includes a contingency amount of 40%-60%.
As these projects move closer in the capital forecast, the cost estimates are refined and
updated to reduce the amount of contingency required. If total costs are revised downward,
the capital transfer can be reduced or budget room be made available to address other
urgent capital requirements.
For non-Engineering/Utility projects, contingencies are not included in the budget figures.
This means that if a project is noted as a Class C, the budget does not include a contingency
amount of 40%-60%, and there is some risk that the actual cost could be higher than budget.
As these projects move forward in the capital forecast, the cost estimates are refined and
F - 70
updated. If the full contingency is in fact required, other projects would be re-prioritized to
make the additional funding available.
To help prepare budget estimates, staff review recent tenders to better understand current
costing and/or contract for outside expertise in costing to help prepare budgets. Staff will
continue to use these measures and adjust project budgets as better information becomes
available.
7. Provide revenue and expense totals for all reserve funds.
This information is attached below in standardized categories of revenues and expenses.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
F - 71
rn v_O m r- r- c> o O
W
In CD Cf) CCC lC) 00 O
W N N N N M N LO
W =
> V
W
0
++ CO 01 r r 01 Cl) CO O M M O O
d C`') N ' N O O r N V CO
tw
C Q
O
m N
J d
0
M N V � O M O O
O O O I� r M r O O O
Ca r r r r C`")
N
CO M M Cr0 CLO 0) -* - � N W
47 > M O r O7 O r Ln rl
M V M M N M CO 0)
47 n
a) Ln
a)
LO LO
R O N N N N
O 3
M
O M
U
LO LO ui o 0
r 0 co O O co M O O
V v 0') N N I N M O O
C v N N N N N M
i
7
C
(O r- O w O LO
C N r r r M LO I-
0
i
a`
W
� >
W D _0 _ CD
w � °
CC W CO ro ro a N E a� Cn N _ Q rn
U) C:) O U OC aa) a ro CO ''= CD m C CD
C CL W m E E E o y O U oC � x y m C
0 0 0 0 O O O Q W tm a5 lL E
CD
C m
W Z C .�. c W j 7
N y jccc °' a> - 0 cc u5 v � E 'x
W W a y ro ro ro x ro ro ro m m .E ro
cc O Ocn W M U) Z W o[ � �
r
0
N
Q m U ° W
F - 72
0
LLL C
J
m LO LO o o c> o
co co LO
E o
E J
O
V
V
y O
d a
LO LO LO LO r LO o
r r LO
V d
U Y
0
IC CO O LO LO O) O) O
O M M V
0
i N
a W
V y V CO O) r CO CO O N O N N O
•£ E I� co LO LO O') N r w r O
Q O N N ter... O) O
O O N r O
C r
O N
V >
W 0
I- LO O LO LO N O
m V LO LO LO O O
m N LO
{+ r
a
W
� >
W D _0 _ CD
wF-
°
CC W U) — � � N C � U) N _ Q tm
fA � ° M O U oC a� aa) a ro (1) m C v
W m E E E o y O U oC x y m C
0 0 0 0 O O O Q W G7 LC lL E
C m
W Z C .�. C W j 7
N D c c c a> r c c c 5 U E a> E .
W W a y ro ro ro x ro ro ro °' m U) .E ro
cc O cn W M U) Z W oC � �
r
0
N
Q m U ° W
F - 73
LO r r r CO O O
O O
C C r N
V
LO r r r CO (0 I-
x
(0 CO LO (0
LO LO
I- Cl) M O O O O (p
co CD.C O M (MO V
Ln r ter... M M LO
O (p 00 LO LC) O O
V N N O O I- N (p N
y (p (p 00 I- M N O
0 m r N N c r r
N
'V Il (p LC) LC) M N (p
CD LO LO
N V (0
> Ln 3
i N
a) Ln
y M co 00 M M r 0) V
N (p r M O LC) C C.0. O
Uq a
O M d
a c
NLu
Q N N r r M V (0
N r `r. r- N M
C G.
C
W
O Lo N r Co 0 w co LO 0) (00 LO
� C r
m i
CL co
C7
O O CO w w w N (p
CO (p M r r M O M
cl O r r M N O
yL 0
m N C\l co
C\l LO w CD CD i V T CO M CO w w r- M O
y O N N I� L[)
CD LO
m 0
tw of (00 LO LO LLLo Lo 0) r- LLLO N
C 'i co r O I- r N
Q'M r r r C\ V (0
Ca LL
W
LU D _0 J
CA LL
W H _ > 0) LL m
CC W U) N c (1) U) N
CD
fA O U oC a� y a (� a�i '-- m m C CD
v
W m 0 0 0 0 d O U oC � x CU 7
m N .F .F .F C It y 0 0 0 Q W lC LL
C m
L� Z C +�+ C LLJ +�+ > j 7
N L y j c c c °' a> 0 c c c u5 v N E 'x
W a y ro ro ro m x 0 0 0 m m C a> ro
cc O cn Lu C5ocn Z W It
r
0
N
Q m U o W
F - 74
E y I- O M M O O O O co M
7 M V N N N N ter... M co (O
N r N N N N r N
+O
4,
+
_
'a Y
a'
V r r r LO O O
Q.N N LO LO
I- N
V N
X
H
O O O CD CD
O
� co LO LO
R V M
V
O r r r r M O)
jp N N LO LO
E +, co Ln
o
y N M V V
V
i
d
y i m LO N N N 00 V CD N
Q) m c0 00 V M
r- N
R Vf
V N
r
Q
(a _ O O
U CO O
�+ O) I-
Y Q N
d V
N N M LO LO N O LO LO
++
O 'Q
V
+�+ V LO LO LO O O O
•Q O7 O C C
m N V N
V T
m
C7
tw M M M O
C f6 m C
— r
R
00 V
W
>
W D _0 J
W H > d
CC W U) ro ro a N c (1) U) N _ Q CD
CD
fA � ° m O U oC a� y a ro U) ''= m m C v CL W m E E E o y O U oC x y m C
0 0 0 0 O O O Q W G7 m lL E
cc
x E C m
W Z C .�. C � W > 7
N c c c a> o d c c c v ab U a> E .
W W a y ro ro ro x ro ro ro °' m aNi E ro
cc O Ocn W M U) Z W o[ � �
r
0
N
Q m U o W
F - 75
c v v 0 co co c> O
y ' O r M M M co O
c M L
i to
V J
N
LY
i Ln co O Co O O Co M O
O O LO LC) LC) T O
+�+ N r r O Co O
M v r r r L()
J N
c
O I� T 00 00 O
m M co Co I- r- LC) Co O
�^ m M M r O
C C Ln
N m
� a
m
v (0 u> T O O o r N O O
W N N C N N t M r- LO LLO
O C`") (0 (D r V LC) N rl
y �
U) I- O (0 CO I- LO N CO r O O
I- (0 O CO co N r M O O
m M N N O O ' M 00 LC) L[) L[)
> CO M M rl Cp CO ci LCj N r-
�
a R
Q C7
R
U O (D CO M M O M
i (C ' M Off') C � � N co
ym r (0 CO r- �T... M
N R
LL (7
++ V r V N 1� O r- Or- O O O
c r- O LO (O T LO LO O O 0) co LO LO
I, M (0 r M M I- L T r V
Q L[) N M M C LL) N (fl
0
a
W
N O O CO w M L[) L[)
CO L() r Co CO O LC) w T M O
0 I- � r- O O N LC) M O
CL
r r
V
c � Lo r M M co co M 0) r-
0 O CO O CO V V
Q r
N
d
H
W
>
W _0 J
O LL
W F- > O LL + d
CC W U) N C N U) N Q
CD
0 CD 0 to
U) O U OC aa) a ro (1) ''� m m C v
W m E E E 0 d O U K d 7
m N .F .F .F C It y 0 0 0 Q W lC LL
C m
W Z S r � � c w c z c > j
N L y > c c c °' u5 - 0 c c c u5 - v ai E 'x
W a y ro ro ro x ro ro ro m c m
cc O � HHH � Ocn LU M0cn Z W GC .2! .2
r
0
N
Q m U o W
F - 76
ISSUE: BD21—Council Home Office &Technology Budget
FUND: Operating and Capital
DEPARTMENT: CAO — Mayor &Council
PREPARER: Roger LeBrun, Manager of Accounting
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was asked to provide information that
summarizes the budgets and costs to date for the Council Home Office &Technology Budget.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Operating Budget:
Each year, the operating budget is determined by Council and this amount is equally distributed
and capped per member of Council. Any surplus balance at the end of the year is not carried
forward to the next year. The table below shows the annual budget and spending for all
members of Council for the current term of Council. Note that the annual budget was reduced in
2013 by$6,000.
lip lip
2616
(1 rnonth) 2.611 261.2 261.3 YTD
Budg'e't for Mayor and Councillors 3,,36,9 46,,425 46,,425 34,,425
Less.Olperatiiing Expenses 738 22„211. 23,688 22,914
Surplus (defdidt) 2„631 18�,214 17,,337 11,,.511
Capital Budget:
For each 4 year term of Council, a total capital budget is established and funded in the first year.
The amount is capped per member of Council and any unused portion is carried forward to the
next year. At the conclusion of the 4 year term, any unused funding is closed out to capital
surplus. The table below shows the total 4 year budget for all members of Council and the
spending by year.
Budget for Mayor and Councillors 58,316
Less 2010 Capital Purchases 1,716
Less 2011 Capital Purchases 18,933
Less 2011 Capital Purchases 6,651
Less 2013 YTD Capital Purchases 2,371
Total Spending To Date 29,670
Balance Remaining 28,646
F - 77
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Any reduction to the operating budget would reduce the tax levy by that amount.
Any reduction to the capital budget would reduce the tax levy by% of that amount, since the
impact would be spread over each of the 4 years. For example, reducing the capital budget by
$8,000 for the term would result in a tax levy reduction of$2,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
F - 78
ISSUE: BD22 — Public Art Fund Balances
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: CAO— Economic Development
PREPARER: Silvia Di Donato, Manager, Arts and Culture
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was asked to provide additional
information about the existing balance related to Public Art.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The Public Art capital project has a current balance of$601,836, which is subject to the City's Public Art
Policy (1-816). The Public Art Policy governs the use of the Pubic Art Fund balances, specifically
directed as a 1% allocation of qualifying capital projects. The policy defines Public Art as original art
works, permanent or temporary, in any medium or discipline, placed, incorporated or performed in
publicly accessible indoor or outdoor locations in response to the site and for the benefit of the public.
Public Art Policy aims to contribute to the City's cultural identity and its strategic priorities resulting in
better quality of life, increased social cohesion, good urban design, broad community involvement,
increased potential for economic development, and public access to the arts. The vision statement for
Public Art in Kitchener was created through community consultation: "Kitchener is a vibrant
community where the best forms of public art explore our diversity, tell our stories, and welcome
artists to use creativity and imagination to make unique landmarks and beautiful gathering places."
The existing balance in the Public Art capital project represents a value of 1% of qualifying City capital
projects. The existing balance in the project relates primarily to timing differences between when
funds are allocated and when they are spent. In other words, balances accumulate over time and are
spent as capital projects are implemented, in accordance with 1% allocation stated in Public Art Policy.
Public Art funds can fall into one of two categories.
• Allocated 1% Public Art Projects
• Consolidated Fund 1% Public Art Projects
Allocated 1% Public Art Projects: As per policy, funds are transferred into the Public Art capital
account at the outset of related capital projects. As public art projects can take multiple years to
complete, the funds can remain unspent in the Public Art capital account for a number of years.
Projects are recommended for council approval by ACAC (Arts and Culture Advisory Committee)
through PAWG (Public Art Working Group) review. The table below presents a list of projects that are
in progress across the City.
Allocated 1% Public Art Projects Existing Balance
Civic District Garage (128,400)
Kitchener Public Library (,70,015,)
Other: Doon Golf, Bridgeport Community Centre, temporary
installations, City Centre Parking (50,427)
Total Balance (248,842)
F - 79
Consolidated Fund 1% Public Art Projects: Based on the Public Art Policy, large construction projects
contribute a portion of their Public Art budget to a consolidated fund. These funds are accumulated
over time to develop more impactful projects, rather than developing small installations associated
with smaller projects. The fund is used 'top up' smaller projects and to complete the priorities set out
in the Public Art Master Plan. The current allocation plan for these funds is contingent on three factors:
First, the timing of projects tied to public art will cause a time lag in the expenditures from this fund.
Second, the separate annual capital funds for restoration and annual maintenance of the current
public art collection requires increased allocation. In 2013 an assessment of the public art (30 items)
and the industrial artifacts (22 items) collections was undertaken as a preliminary step to determine
realistic maintenance allocations in the future. Based on these inspections, restoration and
maintenance would require an estimated transfer of $100,000 for both public art and industrial
artifacts.
Third, in order to determine the best use of these consolidated funds, there is a planned Arts and
Culture Strategy for 2014-2015. This strategy will include consultation with stakeholders for elements
such as public art, arts programming, business development in arts sectors, including digital content,
design, music and film. It should be noted that the fund is not likely to accumulate as quickly over the
next few years, since stimulus funding from other levels of government created a greater than usual
capital project investment in recent years. For this reason, careful planning for future funding and
implementation is intended as part of the Arts and Culture Strategy. The strategy will also include a
review of the Public Art Five-Year plan to aid in fund allocation that aligns with community needs and
policy direction.
The table below presents a list of projects that are in progress or to be allocated across the City.
Consolidated Fund Public Art Projects: Existing Balance
Public Art Collection Restoration & Maintenance (estimated transfer to
maintenance fund) (100,000)
Fairway Road Extension (in progress) (74,000)
Community Proposals (e.g Planning Around Rapid Transit Station (PARTS) CSD-
13-104, COKE-13-061, ROW Temporary installations, community murals,
sponsored Statue Project, Youth Video, Bike Rack, Art in Community Centres) (178,995)
Total Balance (352,995)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information
F - 80
ISSUE: BD23 — Fire Communications Equipment
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Community Services - Fire
PREPARER: Tim Beckett, Fire Chief
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was asked to provide details of the 10
year replacement plan for Fire Communications Equipment.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
In order to maintain an effective and efficient emergency service communications centre to meet
the needs of citizens, timely replacement or upgrades of critical components are necessary. In
the past, the City has reactively pushed off upgrades or taken funding from other sources (such
as computer maintenance) to fund these expenditures. The proposed Fire Communications
Equipment capital project proactively ensures that a lifecycle funding model is in place to
replace/upgrade equipment at the end of its useful life. A multi-year lifecycle funding model has
been used successfully to manage the replacement of Fire Major Equipment and Fleet, and that
method is being applied to manage the replacement of Fire Communication Equipment.
The details of the Fire Communications Equipment capital projects are shown on the attached
appendix, but there is no net budget impact as all funding has been reallocated from
existing/planned capital projects. The beginning balance of$185,548 comes from the existing
balance in the Dispatch Upgrade capital project, while the transfer from capital in 2014 to 2023 is
being reallocated from other Fire capital accounts that were earmarked to be used for these
purposes.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
F - 81
a,
3
v �
O O O O O O an a 00 v 0 m v
rn n v �o an v ry n v rl 0 rl m
00 O ti m 00 00 c-i 00 It 17 ti 0 I� m N
., 0 m rn Ln ri ko of rl ri rl rl m rl nn m
ry ti m r-4 m W v �o ti v
° 3
v W U
m O N
O O ll1 0 l0 00 to O 00 -O O E
to O rl O M W M O V � �0 � y
ry 00 I� l0 M V O Cif m
L 0 0n ?
Ln N N rl 00 m m 00 Ln rl O Q U
p� N N llf M Ln rl V
m
au 0n i 0n Q
C O _ C
m n
Cif rl 00 to 00 O 00
Ii18' l0 l0 m kc l0 O m
14 ti Ln m 3 c - c m on 'a
n
c o o •3 v o m
O v a ° n E
O in O in v a m v 0 00 � m E v \
O rl O �l �o LM ry Ln o �o
�o o �o ti ry ti o c o a
ry ry ry ^ w �o �o °1 v m m ° v y
v j > v w a n
Y U
' � m � 'n m m O W �n
c aj
N In O O O to e-I M c-I O M OU y aJ CL E c-I aJ (0 C
Q O 00 Cif V Ln I, m I- O ry C w Cif E m
V binA, l0 N M Ln Ci1 N V N O N 'O a) \ m L •Q 3 _O Q L
LV �qu m y r ry 0 ui Ln Ln m E v on o 5 o f
ry m ti 00 00 00 c v y, m
ai n o •m v E ° E
O E m m = \ C u x
LL J 00 Ln O m w m to O m m Y = w _ m CO -p
Q �o �o �o n a m v O rn E \ v m E i
iuo� ry v I� N ry o v v W v on E E °; m o `�'
H ��r�u m ri 0 0 0 0 m n ° O = v ,� c m
d Q m of V1 V1 m y = U (> Q >• C Q
Q V a to m " v 0 E E 0
OJ
W m E = o > °cn iz m v c
on o v v m o v E _ m W
o O O O O �o w �o �o o rn n U c v c '_ �n c aj
Vf O �o m rn m o o m = 0 m 0 > v v c = ._ o
LL an m m Ln Ln Ln m Ln O r- v •� 3 v o v o
J �p��u O O V r-4 �o to O 11 O O '0 v a! '- a! a! ry
Q r04 ti ti 0 3 y m = y rn v o m •" c E
v
d Q c .E i • • v v c o Q E° E
V i 0 O v
O c
Y
ai C 0n m E
Ln ry ry to W to to O O C N v U E u y U aJ N aJ 0n y
Z V M N M M to M O M
aj a C
Q prolu cy ry cl to 14 N rH O c-I jy m E ate+ •_ —
3
m c " E
C O 3 v0 m c � • �
c r o o v c _ m E
O ry O O O O N 00 ry 0 to �n y •+-+ N O ai
Ln o Ln o 00 00 v 00 0 �o O m p > _ v $ 3
Al" � � ry O � kc m �o O � v Y ° m � on � n
�u io 0o ry m �o m rn �o O rry > y ^ m u U
UP, cti O M N M N c-I O vi vi .N E
d ti 1 ti ti > 3 E v O y c c v y v
W C 'O o u L o v m n U
0 ° y m w c ° U CL 3 o E m
LV O O O O O O O O o 00 O O 00 v - mr 0 cL ° C. E
O O O O O O O O o v O O v m 'o v
in Q
uuoiF O 0 0 0 O O ry O N V] ry O M E .� O C N L aJ >• cti \
qu' o o v Ln 0 0 ri �o w m �o 0 of m O v o v = v c Q `^ `x >
LL u ti m ti m 0 0 oo o in ry ai t m ai ._ <C m x -
fV M cl m cl O O Q 3 'O aJ U 0n O aJ m
> y L Q
L m O 3 .� N Q E •E U m Vt C
mE LE 0cn o 0 3 �n o c = y Y c OJ
z, v
° ° m U N N Y C U aJ y i
c o E 0 v = m o ai
y n
C U •�- V C
Y m
c m ti m
n nn c 0 = v o E ^ m ° O
m
E v
v 1° E O _o y ° E ^ y O -0 m
E " 0 m v v v ° ? v y ~ U o
O1 u w u w 'O U E C C
Y Y v v m y m y o y v y c m Q
v) E v E c 0 n 0 -" " E v v X ° w E ocn oo
c v U m on a' m m 0 0 0 0 v E U v
E w O U m U v m 0A m LE `� > C = c O m U v m C
Vae LL OA y Vl L c-I aJ s+ y C Vl m ~ - bn E Q w O N Q y = Q m
',.'�7 J aa.+ C O O U •C Q m C ° aa.+ C " O d `� i a+ C N
T N E m N v ti an o n 0 y x n E ^ m v 0 ti O n = 0 0 u
a v = v O 0A w H v >. m N O U
v w v ¢ M z 2 D V w N 2 F a, C o v m c� a
m W 6 w u 2 Q � m Z 2D c�/7 Li N 2
11 N m V m to rl 00 m O cl N m V Ln 11 ry m V m to rl W m O 11 N m V m
c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I IH c-I c-I IH IH
F - 82
ISSUE: BD24— Park&Trail General Provision Work Plans
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services - Operations
PREPARER: Dan Ritz, Supervisor Design & Development (519-741-2600, ext. 4348)
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was asked to forward their annual
work plans for park and trail general provisions.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Annually staff update work plans for park and trail general provision accounts, these accounts
include:
• MULTI-USE PATHWAYS &TRAILS
Development of the city wide trail network (Community Trail General Provision) as per
the direction of the Multi-Use Pathways and Trails Master Plan (2012).
• PLAYSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENTS
Annual replacement of park playstructures beyond their 20 year life cycle.
• NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK DEVELOPMENT
Development of new Neighbourhood Parks (General Park Provision) as forecasted by the
Kitchener Growth Management Plan (2013-2015).
• NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK REHABILITATION
Renewal of existing Neighbourhood Parks within mature neighbourhoods in the central
area of the city as per the direction of the Parks Strategic Plan (2010).
• DISTRICT& CITY-WIDE PARK DEVELOPMENT
Annual upgrades to district parks, including sportfields (Major Park General Provision) and
the ongoing upkeep and upgrades to City-Wide Parks (General Provisions) as per the
direction of the Parks Strategic Plan (2010) and Leisure Facilities Master Plan Update
(2013).
Note: The above work plans are attached separately to this issue paper.
Each work plan includes a project list of short-term projects (2-3 years) and long-term projects (7-
10 years). A city key map is included on the work plan to identify project locations.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
No change to the existing 2014-2023 capital forecast.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
F - 83
MULTI-USE PATHWAYS & 'TFUILS
UPDATED DECEMBER 2013
COMMUNITY TRAILS GENERAL PROVISION
FOREGASTED(201441023I PLANNED(BEYOND 2023)
2014 11111 2023a 2023.
1 Conerriciril 21) Dux rmirrily Trail-IFranktl n SP-N..It Carbor PI In(30—a SI 219 Sir-br"g Crook FisJHall Rd In Gas Enaemu11c1.
12 l sdduo Wua(4 pkari'marl 2 2, (Tmmunity Trail-SUl Dr,Na l Cwlils V OwNe Cr. Twl
SIrxa%'rS Crack North Brard,-Ri&m Of a Hvvi
I Hmw Perk-Wator—f Rd b LA-—,fil I Or— 23 Commil•Vlama Rd W,,twin Ffs&er HaPirw to Nall Area
"'Z&A; V8 S',wburg Ceaak Fuhask,I-Till Trad lo Sillain Dr P Black
4 I=I terse;Than Gonads TIME�Ha mard An X Nod Line Rd,iCanip!"Ir, 21 Exam Pond-Till�It Hlift Corridor wahjA
fian 20Q) a
1.T [,an I Il t Tram Cal Tl-Bacot Ora,Bridge Jrrderpan icooeonn 25 'Gas Easemoent TraL DeAMS Rd,as MTdw'Neill Z.I$ Srrasi Creek-71,aso 2-DRIhn Go Lt Hwor Rd
Ill MQ) 2!A Hl Slk an,Gl,ow—'vy-'To Irz Nwl RW 2,20 TlIl Till T,villo F"yonulow,Aw PoomWiRG OIL
1.g Iran Horse V Tram Oanl TrsO-R�nsr 131,to Mandl Qu 2 7 H.IfftLind.,Pauk-Rr Rd.k,Mupn A. �',21 Walla,Swin Go I,Lw*(nA U'low SIOM a Pierow lav
1 7 Iren Horse 0 Trans Canada Trwl-Will Ave W Hunan Rd improvements Rd-
2.11
1 2 1), Huron Nature',kea,Hydm C onridorr to Flatter Hallman Rd, 2 27 Vvafla'Raw,GRT ShtdeyAqri
21) Hl Carl�Fwhef Hallmn Rd to Sle"s Rd "23 Cvnm,rv,,V rinail•Keewalm Aw.In ll I Otbarbom
14 vealwfli ungesnayis I rail Dowleomorii 2.401 "Tomocr,"y"'kv 224 Awkway Gaftra-Nyberg 81.[a Civoin St
1 To wausnoo Rapist sow Los Toul 2.T1 R"a Cmidw-Sll DR It Hulw Ad Z C.5 Tupper Woods-Ribo 1 I'Mrs Dr.Ir,kAun n Ridp Trail)
I T1 W,,,sffwe,%7ra3 �32 fo�e.ocd Creak Dom Cardillo Trail to Fa-ay Rd, 2,26 Tol Woods�rop�,w Wori(s Dos,Z Door Sown Or,
MIS to Mood CWk Roohisunpixr,Orl To Chwil On, l ftwgo•puor&ipsgki P'4ftf
1.112 Cowl L4 Lolpeol(WI skfflajful I e,Fill�,'Iyosul re64 Vg'wve-cpy 6N,*lal&Alagy
1..119 iron Home;Trans conseo rnoa-E5not bme Rd si 8aJzwR-. 2.115 Mdi loaurk
1.P4 Kola Cnsek-lickps,of Rwhwy Aw., Pr i$d!hndVq:Br'Gr59k
Tf6,j R6,50dackig°Uprar)"pip owlea,ul 0 asphiao
Pad Ro'consIvIdion•601 Convnxltm of U&
sovywo's
1.116 Iron I Il;Trans Call real•moriiou Dr.vr4el 23
2017 201111
1.17 Crioul Iraillstww Dr 10 Coulffiftl Am am Vativ Park
127
1 Ig H.w Woods-tral aygen,
rt
1 M Hui=Kil how p rl—ing
1:R1 Ircwv Home?T,amCanada
Noera St
1:T? Fistier Hallman-Huron NaWraj Area i Imp
123 Water Been CRT-Kal Sit,
ren Hur.;7raroGan,.1,a T.J-H—,Rd ioMi11 Ps,,k[3,-
124
1:2,r Inw,Horse/Traits Canadm TmA•CournwTI Aw 0 fill A",
126 Backer E swats Tralls A,
127 WaBat 81 CRT Scouts property OD Buldp Sk
1.25 bran Hl Frns(cunm Trni-Mill!Pone[),
i.5
al
I A
'N'
920
LEGEND A2
7 '972 TYPE 1 MAIL NETWORK r 5
------ TYPE 2 TRAIL NETWORK 1 2f,
Rl
1dN Y&AR COMMUNITY TRAIL DEVRATTIPMF.iluP PORR'ASt IS S WIKIF.Co(0
RLWS414 BASED ON ANNUAL BUDGET AFIF Rl AND
RE FRIORI-Il OF TW&SEGMENTS SWTIWN ASME
KifICHENF.R.
F - 84
PLAYSTRUCTURE REPLACEMENTS
PLAYSTRUCTURE UPDATED DECEMBER 2013
REPLACEMENTS
CAPITAL FORECAST 2014-2023
PARK(2014-2016) YEAR PARK(2017-2019) YEAR PARK(2020-2023) YEAR
ill Victoria Park 2014 3.1 Carly&Park 2017 61 Cedar Crest Park 2020
2015 3,2 Chandler Park 2017 6.2 Cancauha Park 2020
112 Eby Park 2014
3.3 Eastforest Park 2017 6.3 Highland Courts Park 2020
1.3 Tecumseh Park 2014 3.4 Forest West Park 2017 6.4 Overdo Park 2020
2 1 Kiwanis Park 2016, 3-5 Voiri Park 2017 66 Timilberiare Park 2020
2.2 Centreville-Chicopee Park 2016, 41 Country Hills Park 2018 7.1 Fenwick Green 2021
23 Upper Canada Park 2016 42 Highbrook Park 2018 72 Hillside Park 2021
24 Crosby Park 2016 43 Laurentian Park 2018 73 Major Park 2021
2.5 GildnerPark 2016, 44 Vanier Park 2018 74 Willowlake Park 2021
45 Wheatfield Park 2018 7.5 Timm Park 2021
46 Knollwood Park 2018 82 Bruburcher Park 2022
51 Wadau Woods Park 2019 83 Guelph St.Park 2022
5,2 Sandhills,Park 2019 8A Lips Park 2022
53 Resurrecdon Park 2019 2 1
99 Civic Park 2023
5.4 Wilson Park 2019 4 912 Ferrer Park 2023
5,5 Windrush Park 2019
93 Heritage Park 2023
94 River Ridge Park 2023
M Sylvia Park 2023
1.4
4.6
a ,-,fir F oii e2 35 s4
'w
A
........ . ....
2
Ki -*11ENER
F - 85
NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK DEVELOPMENT
UPDATED DECEMBER 2013
GENERAL PARK PROVISION GENERAL PARK PROVISION GENERAL PARK PROVISION
PARRS COMPLETED•.2018 CAPITAL FORECAST 201.4.2015 CAPITAL.FORECAST 101
1 1 Fellowflold Community Park 21 Tomplewood Community Park 31 Ao N&TwestarCOmmuntlty,2 Community Part.,t
1.2 Forese Crack Community Park 2.2 City Centro Community Park QF..Oh Siitle) Pottle
3,.2 Banker Estates Communiy:.2 Cormmunity Parks,6
1,3 Forces T.Cmrnmunity,Park 2.3 1 Oaks Community Park Psrkekles
14 Tit Green 24 Groh ParlketPe 31 Behr Community:l Community Park
25 Hidden Walley Commonly Park 3,.4 Huron Road Urban Green
2,5 Oscar Leader Pauli 15 Blair Creek:3lParkzltes
2.7 Old Collage Parkena 3.6 Brigedoan South Community,2 Community Parks
2.8 Pioneer Grove Parkette 3.7 Grtend River(Flats(Rockway Hindi 2 Community
2.9 Robert Parse Green Parks.,3 Pod,ones
2.10 Rosemount Community PacklNoQrte[lame SaPoaoll 3'.8 Huron Words Cummurlty.1 Community Park(Talon
Cresl,1 Parkei[a
211 Schre.rg Be.Parke14e 3.9 Mornsein Road Community Park
2.12 Sophie Green. 3.18 Rosenberg Commum^:T Community Parks,multiple
2.13 Slae4Yer Woods Park Parkettes
2.14 Seabrook Urban Green I&2 3.91 Sarodra Sprop Parkelle,
2.15 Seabrook and l.udolph Neighbourhood Park
8.12 West Oak Trail.Urban Green
2.16 Ludellph Gre®sway s 313 Thomas Ski 2 Community Parks
2.17 Blair Creek Community Perk(Monarch) 3.114 Walleyscaps Panels
+" 27 r 3.15 Weinhaviii Beside Gonnn iryr.t Community Park
r
1ar1'nh
✓ri0r 819
r
"rb1✓ 4�^' 23
��Pr�h //i�1,r✓� iiri i/� m /'✓urn� y✓liiiiiiiii
,rrl' a r%�////%✓//i ✓✓�./��; l//�'" �+„�
d rr4ua
T
�} lull/ 3 9
;' iii ii tr e *✓r
i�
t
uo
' iii 2 U7
3118
21
y..
215 y
r 13 4 215214 12 T`1 B 5 rr r 1 2 iii///������������/iii��ii������
3B
r'
KT�- ER
F - 86
NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK REHABILITATION
UPDATED DECEMBER 2013
PARK REHABILIATION PARK REHABILIATION
CAPITAL FORECAST 2014-2016 YEAR CAPITAL FORECAST 2017-2023
1.1 Charles Best Park 2014 4.1 Arnold Park
12 Glendale Park 2014 42 Belmont Park
13 Stabler Green 2014 4.3 Cherry Park
2.1 George Lippert Park 2015 4.4 Concordia Park
22 Homewood Green 2015 4.5 Duke Park
3.1 Growski Park 2016 4.6 Highland Courts Park
3.2 Gill Green 2016 4.7 Hillside Park
4.8 Kaufman Park
4.9 Major Park
4.10 Maple Lane Green
4.11 01 Park
4.12 Sandhills Park
i. 4.13 Scharlach,Green
yiiiiiiiiiiii
4,14 Uniroyal-Goodrich Park
4.15 Wallenberg Park
4.16 Weber Park
Note the parks abolo are Psrel aiphababluny
, R
tGHgOU 000 PARK 4.9
h4 0
REHABILITATION AREA 4
iiii
ole;;171�
�e..........
...............
..........
...............
KITOTEN'L±/
F - 87
DISTRICT & CITY WIDE PARK DEVELOPMENT
UPDATED DECEMBER 2013
MAJOR PARK GENERAL PROVISION CITY-WIDE PARKS GENERAL SKATEBOARD PARKS
PROVISIONS
COMPLETED 2013 LEAF FUNDING,-COMPLETED 2013 2014-2016
1.1 Meirtzinger Park-Replace broken 1"water main,with 2'water 4.1 Kiwarns Park.-tree inanting 36 Fischer Park-skatepark design(2014)
main 4.2 Huron Natural Area-Plantation final �6 Fischer Park-skate auk construction f2015)
1,2 Peter Hallman Bailyard-Backstop and fencing replacements
2014-2016 3 McLennan Park-wq parl,lighting 2016-2017
21 BndgppDr(-Cii entrance sign 3 McLennan Park-tree plai 2.5 Supintrut Opbm,A Spusl5held-skatep.,k design(2015)
22 Brefthaupt Park-Repacesitant backstops diamonds 112 4.4 Victoria Park-Commons irrigation 2-3 Southwest Optimist Swirlsfied-skategark construction f2017p
23 Southwest Optimist Sportsfieds-sporisheld masterplan and LEAF FUNDING,-2014
construction 4.1 Kiwaria Park-Ponic shelter
24 Pete,Hallman Balitimid-Light pole retrofit 4.2 Huron Natural Area-natural playground
2.5 Voisin Park-Ball diamond ouffield fence connection 43 McLennan Park West side trail
2017-2019 44 Vicious Park-Mourk garbage containers,
31 Menu Park-3 mini soccer fields turf rehab 2015
32 Bridgeport Spandisfield-Civitair 3 oulfield fence 4.3 McLennan Park-asphalt paving
33 Bridgeport Sporefield-Joe 71holl buffed forcing 4.4 Victoria Park-asphalt paving
34 Bridgeport Spornsfield-Shown I and 2 turf rehab 4.1
315 Eby Park-new Tournament goals and turf rehab
3.8 Fischer Park-Upper and lower soccer hold turf Theo
37 idlewood Park,Edit diannond Infleldl,sower and ball turf rehab
38 Laurentian Park-2 sower fields turf rehab
39 Mathison Park-Mini sower fields furl rehab
310 Rosenberg Perk-0jamord 41 lighting retrofit
311 Weber Park-Ba�l,l infield rehab
312 Westbeghts Park-Sower field turf rehab 12
'WA
3,13 Wilson Park-Backsides and fencing diamond 3 and 4
3 14 Woodaide Park-Hr hlland entrance lilt iii'
Secondary Fields-Straighten,repair,and paint socceilfootball
goals
52
313
NF,
(D
i 31
'A
KTCH NCR
F - 88
ISSUE: BD25 —Synthetic Turf Funding Reallocation
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services - Operations
PREPARER: Dan Ritz, Supervisor Design & Development (519-741-2600, ext. 4348)
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was requested to provide options on
reallocating the 2014 portion of Synthetic Turf funding ($488,000) to 2014 Parks &Trails projects,
with matching Park &Trail funding ($488,000) back to Synthetic turf in later years.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Synthetic Turf funding has been forecasted in the 10 year capital budget (shown below) for the
conversion of existing natural turf fields to synthetic turf as per the direction of the Parks
Strategic Plan (2010), recommendation 4.2. $488,000 of C/C funding is identified in 2014.
Capital Budget Forecast 2014 2015 2016 12017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Totals
Synthetic Turf—C/C 488 539 550 1577
Synthetic Turf—DC 573 633 645 1851
Note:all values shown in thousands
OPTION 1 (Existing Forecast— No Change)
That synthetic turf funding remains in 2014 as per the current capital budget forecast. Design and
construction drawings for the conversion of sportfields would proceed in spring 2014, tender in
summer 2014 and construction occurring in the fall of 2014 and spring of 2015.
OPTION 2 (Reallocation of 2014 Synthetic Turf Funding)
That synthetic turf C/C funding for 2014 is reallocated to 2015 & 2016. Design, tender and
construction for the conversion of sportfields would occur throughout 2015. Matching park C/C
funding would be reallocated to 2014 as identified below. Impact to staff resources, minimal.
Proposed Changes 2014 2015 2016 Comment
Synthetic Turf Sportfields (488) 338 150 Reallocate 2014 C/C Funding to 2015&2016.
Community Trails 0 (0) (0) Trail Funding in 2015&2016 is below the recommended Trails
Master Plan level of$700,no reallocation is recommended as
significant funding is still available from 2013 LEAF allocation.
Playground Features 158 (0) (18) Restore 2014 playground funding that was reallocated to
McLennan Park Paving project.
McLennan Park(Asphalt) 190 (190) (25) Move McLennan Park paving forward to 2014.
Emerald Ash Borer 100 (50) (50) Reallocate EAB funding recommended to accelerate tree
removal activities.
General Park Development 0 (58) (57) Reallocate a portion of the General Park Development funding
for 2015/16 to Playground Features.
Victoria Park(Asphalt) 40 (40) Move Victoria Park paving forward to 2014.
Difference 0 0 0 No Net Annual Impact
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
No net impact annually to capital budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
For direction by council.
F - 89
ISSUE: BD26 Woodside Park—Synthetic Fields Update
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services - Operations
PREPARER: Greg Hummel, Manager Park Planning, Development and Operations
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was asked to provide information on the status
of the synthetic fields at Woodside Park in order to determine if the City is meeting its projected targets.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Grass Fields versus Synthetic Fields
The City's Al and A2 grass fields are booked out at a maximum of 450 hours of use per season (May to
October). These hours have been set because any additional use above these hours would cause greater
wear and tear on the grass and require additional operating costs to repair. While under repair, there is a
continuous loss of revenue. Each year it costs $30,000 to maintain an Al or A2 field. Through the cultural
practices, mowing and repair, the City is able to meet the level of service currently expected for these
grass fields.To construct a natural grass field costs$400,000.
By comparison, replacing a natural grass field with a synthetic field would increase the available hours of
use from 450 to 2000 hours per season (March to December). As well, the operating expenses at the
synthetic field would be reduced to $5,000 per year since there would be no need to cut, fertilize, aerate
or repair the wear areas in the field. To construct a synthetic field costs$1,200,000.
The following table provides a comparison of Al and A2 Grass Fields versus Synthetic Fields (2013 $'s):
Grass Field Synthetic Field
Useable Hours per season 450 hours 2000 hours
Operating season May-October March-December
User Fees (per hour) $57.45 $78.80
Maximum Revenue (per season) $25,852.50 $157,600
Operating Cost (per season) $30,000 $5,000
Capital Cost $400,000 $1,200,000
Over a ten year period, the synthetic field will have collected $1.576 million dollars of revenue through
user fees and will have saved $250,000 in operating expenses. The additional revenue and operational
savings more than offset the additional capital expense of the synthetic field development.
Woodside Park
Woodside Park synthetic fields were completed and opened in March of 2012. The fields continue to
become more popular within the community as more groups are aware of the fields and additional
booking requests continue to rise.
Due to the impact of the fields on the neighbouring townhouse complex, concessions were made to close
field #2 at 10:00 pm nightly and to restrict the start times on weekends to 9:00 am. These concessions
have reduced the primetime hours available by 200 hours each year. These concessions impact groups
that typically play 7:00-9:00pm and 9:00-11:00pm so that their teams are in one place and they use the
same referees. With the adjustment to field #2, the games are at 6:00-8:00pm and 8:00-10:00pm and the
times do not meet their required schedules. These groups have gone elsewhere in the city or to other
municipalities to play.
F - 90
A summary of hours booked and revenue generated at the Woodside fields is show in the table below.
Hours Revenue
2012 2013 2012 2013
Woodside 1 941.75 987.00 70,695.78 72,273.73
Woodside 2 759.50 775.00 57,030.45 57,532.16
Total 1,701.25 1,762.00 1127,726.23 129,805.89
The fields are being used by Minor and Adult Soccer, Field Hockey, Field Lacrosse, Disc Sports, Football
and Rugby groups both during the week and for tournaments and regular league play on weekends. Adult
independent leagues are inquiring about available field times for the 2014 season.
Prior to the opening of the fields, it was anticipated that the target hours for Woodside Park would be
1200 hours per field for year one and increase to 2000 hours per field by year five. As more and more
groups are becoming aware of the availability of Woodside Park Synthetic Fields, additional requests are
being made for field bookings and the City has seen an increase from 2012 to 2013 and is expecting more
in 2014.
In two years at Woodside Park, the first field booking has occurred in the middle of March (snow still on
the ground until mid-April 2013) and the last booking was December 3rd. The City's grass fields do not
open for use until May 1St and are closed by the end of October to eliminate the damage to the grass. In
2013 the City had had to close its grass fields 12 times due to inclement weather and to minimize the
damage to the fields. With the synthetic fields, the fields were used through all bookings and closing of
the fields was not required.
Staff has been working with the school boards to look at opportunities for the shoulder times from
mornings through to 3:00-5:30pm additional use and revenue. Staff is also looking at opportunities for
daytime bookings through the summer months for camps, exercise groups and other recreational
programs.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
F - 91
ISSUE: BD27 —Cenotaph &Vogelsang Green
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services - Operations
PREPARER: Dan Ritz, Supervisor Design & Development (519-741-2600, ext. 4348)
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was requested to consider whether
the Cenotaph site rehabilitation scheduled for 2017 could be advanced to 2014.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The Cenotaph and Vogelsang Green are located on federally-owned lands along Duke Street
between Frederick and Queen Streets and have been identified in 2017 for rehabilitation due to
deteriorating landscape structures on the site. These areas currently serve as public/urban green
space in addition to the Cenotaph serving as the location of the annual Remembrance Day
ceremony. These sites are currently maintained year-round by the City.
Light Rail Transit (LRT) & Street Reconstruction
The proposed northbound corridor of the LRT project travels along Frederick and Duke Streets
with a proposed platform on Frederick Street. It is anticipated that the curb/sidewalk alignment
at the corner of Frederick/Duke and along Frederick will be altered in configuration and final
grade at the Cenotaph site. In addition, the Duke Street reconstruction works originally
scheduled by the City's Engineering division will be coordinated within the LRT work plan for
2014 through 2016. LRT work adjacent to the Cenotaph site is scheduled to be completed by late
2016, allowing Cenotaph site work to occur in 2017. Final Cenotaph designs will match up to the
new curb alignment and grades.
Capital Budget Impact
Currently, the Cenotaph and Vogelsang projects are identified simultaneously in the capital
budget for economy of scale in 2017 at $175,000 each. Final designs have not been completed
and it is anticipated that detailed design and costing would be done prior to the 2017 capital
budget to confirm the budgeting. In order to move these projects earlier in the capital budget,
other more prioritized park and trail projects would need to be reallocated out to 2017.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
No impact to 2014-2023 Capital Budget if projects remain in 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Cenotaph and Vogelsang Green rehabilitation projects remain scheduled for 2017 as
currently identified in the capital forecast.
F - 92
ISSUE: BD28—Civic District Urban Square
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services - Operations
PREPARER: Dan Ritz, Supervisor Design & Development (519-741-2600, ext. 4348)
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was asked to provide an update on
the surface area above the parking garage next to the Kitchener Public Library and funding
options for future development of the Urban Square.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The Civic District Vision & Master Plan
The Civic District Vision & Master Plan (May 2009) provided the development of a greater vision
for the Civic District based on the findings of the visioning exercise, that focused on enhanced
arts, cultural, educational and related uses within the Civic District. Included within this vision
was an Urban Square, located at the centre of the Civic District.
b
/
District ILcnlc,�-Term Master Plan
-
Urban Square
fB - Kitchener Public Library
C Centre in the Square/KWAD
D-Registry Theatre
r.
E- Future(Buildings
Parking Garage
The underground parking garage is currently under construction and an interim grassed area is
proposed at the surface of the parking structure.This surface work is anticipated to be
completed by June 2014 and in the short term will function as an informal park space. Included in
the space will be a sidewalk link between Centre in the Square and the Kitchener Public Library
with access to the underground parking structure.
Urban Square
The future Urban Square lies at the centre of the Civic District.The square is approximately 2,000
to 3,000m2 and located above the future underground parking garage, adjacent to the KPL,
Regional Building and Civic Centre Park. The goals of the new square are to create space for
people for a variety of daily activities, community gatherings, performances, arts, &festivals.
F - 93
In late 2009, a public consultation visioning exercise concluded, identifying 3 preferred concept
plans:
Concept#1: an eye for art (urban plaza, seat walls, amphitheater, natural garden, tree wall)
Concept#2: the creative culture gardens (pathways to success, sculpture & reading gardens)
Concept#3: the flow of creativity(urban plaza, commons, reading area & artistic feature wall)
Final design and costing for the urban square has not begun. In comparison, similar urban
squares range from $450 to $850/m2 in cost depending on the features and materials. Based on
the size of the City's location, this could equate to a cost in the range of$0.91VI to $2.6M.
Urban Square - Next Steps
Upon completion of the parking garage interim surface use, staff will re-examine the potential
opportunities and will bring forward recommendations for the long term development, design,
timing and estimated budgets for the urban square, including opportunities to partner with other
Civic District stakeholders.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Information to be brought forward during the 2015-2024 or 2016-2025 capital budget process.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
F - 94
ISSUE: BD29 —Charles &Water Parking Garage
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services—Transportation Services
PREPARER: Justin Readman, Director,Transportation Services (519) 741-2200, ext.
7038
Paul McCormick, Manager, Parking Enterprise (519) 741-2200, ext. 7155
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was asked to provide information on
the impact of removing the Charles & Water Parking Garage from the capital forecast.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The City of Kitchener has identified the potential need for a parking garage near the corner of
Charles Street West and Water Street South. It is expected that existing surface parking will
satisfy the short term parking needs in the Innovation District, but that future development and
employment growth in the nearby area will create a need for additional parking.
The City currently operates approximately 145 parking spaces spread over two surface parking
lots within the Charles & Water block. As well, in 2010, Council approved the development of
temporary public parking lot on the former Bramm Street Yards site. This parking is considered
temporary as the long term plan for the Bramm Street Yards site is redevelopment.
The original need for the Charles & Water parking garage did not include the consideration of
Light Rail Transit (LRT). As LRT becomes operational and a better understanding for the type and
scale of development through the City's Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) studies,
the need for this garage should be revisited. A needs assessment should be completed in 2018.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There is no immediate financial implication to the 2014 budget as the Charles & Water parking
garage is planned for 2023 and is only tracked as a reminder of the potential parking
development opportunity.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Charles & Water parking garage remain in the capital budget forecast pending
completion of a needs assessment to validate the requirements in 2018.
F - 95
ISSUE: BD30—Traffic Calming Reduction
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services—Transportation Services
PREPARER: Justin Readman, Director,Transportation Services (519) 741-2200, ext.
7038
BUDGET IMPACT: $56,500 decrease
BACKGROUND:
During the 2011 budget, Council increased the City's traffic calming budget to allow for the
completion of 4 traffic calming projects per year. The proposed 2014 traffic calming budget is
$226,000 per year.
As part of the traffic calming policy update presentation to Special Planning and Strategic
Initiatives committee on November 25, 2013 staff were directed to report back on the impacts of
reducing the number of traffic calming projects per year from 4 to 3.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed peer municipality groups to determine the number of traffic calming projects
completed per year and their associated budget. Each of the peer municipalities do not have a
target number of traffic calming projects per year, however the associated budgets are as
follows:
• Brampton - $250,000
• Cambridge - $0
• Guelph -$ 80,000
• Hamilton - $278,000 existing, $370,000 proposed for 2014
• Kingston - $220,000 in 2013, $230,000 proposed for 2014
• London - $125,000
• Waterloo -$100,000
• Windsor- $75,000 proposed for 2014
While it is difficult to compare traffic calming budgets between municipalities, due to differences
in localized traffic issues, it appears that the budget allocation for Kitchener is slightly higher than
peer groups. A reduction to reflect 3 traffic calming projects per year may bring Kitchener in line
with other peer groups.
Alternatively, Council could direct staff to reduce the number of projects per year while
maintaining the existing budget allocation. There is a desire from members of the community,
Emergency Medical Services, Transit and members of council to seek alternatives to traditional
speed hump designs. These measures are more costly to implement. For instance, the
construction of a traditional speed hump costs approximately$5,000, speed cushions (which
permit emergency vehicles to pass at greater speeds) cost approximately$6,000 and a chicane
costs approximately$20,000. A movement towards more progressive traffic calming measures
will have an overall impact on budget requirements.
F - 96
Based on the draft proposed traffic calming policy, a reduction in the number of traffic calming
projects per year would increase the time to complete the list of qualifying traffic calming
projects by 4 years (to a total of approximately 16 years based on the current list of eligible
projects). A reduction in number of projects would allow staff to focus efforts on other policies
and programs that have been delayed due to lack of staffing resources.
A third alternative is to maintain the status quo and have staff report back at a later date. This
will allow staff to better gauge the cost impacts of new traffic calming policy over the next year.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Should council choose to reduce the number of traffic calming projects from 4 to 3 per year and
the associated budget then the capital forecast would be reduced by$56,500 over all years. This
project is funded from the Capital Pool, so any decrease to the budget would reduce the tax rate
increase. However, the cost to implement traffic calming measures in the future will likely
increase as more progressive measures are installed. An alternative could be that Council direct
staff to reduce the number of traffic calming projects to 3 per year while maintaining the existing
budget to accommodate the implementation of more progressive traffic calming measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
F - 97
ISSUE: BD31 — Margaret Avenue Bridge Replacement—Funding Sources
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services - Engineering
PREPARER: Steve Allen, Manager Engineering Design and Approvals
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was asked to provide the funding
sources for the Margaret Avenue Bridge project; totaling$6,286,000.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The replacement of the Margaret Avenue bridge was unplanned, but became an immediate need
due to the condition of the bridge. In order to fund the bridge replacement, other project
budgets have been reduced, deferred or cancelled as shown in the table below. The three major
funding sources are effectively capital out of current, Federal gas tax and the gas utility (for gas
main work).
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Funding Sources for the Margaret Avenue Bridge Replacement ($000)
2013
(existing
Source balances) 2014 2015 2016 TOTALS
Road Resurfacing Program (Gas tax) 1,233 308 1,541
New Sidewalks Local Streets (Gas tax) 164 164
Laneway Rehabilitation (Gas tax) 204 204
AIRP projects reallocation (Gas tax) 216 620 640 1,476
Capital out of Current 1,200 1,200
Gas Utility(for gas main replacement) 300 300
Highland Road (Gas tax) 560 560
Hayward Bridge (Gas tax) 24 24
Slurry Seal Program (Gas tax) 50 50
Operations Sidewalk Repair(Gas tax) 350 350
Balance in Fed Gas Reserve (Gas tax) 399 399
TOTALS 1 1,383 3,317 928 1 640 1 6,268
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
To be read in conjunction with Issue Paper Cap 05 — Margaret Avenue Bridge Replacement.
F - 98
ISSUE: BD32 — Engineering Studies
FUND: Capital
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services— Engineering Services
PREPARER: Binu Korah, Manager of Development Engineering
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Capital Budget Review on November 21, 2013, staff was asked to provide details about
the planned activity in the Engineering Studies capital account and the impact if these studies
were deferred.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The Engineering Studies capital account is used primarily to undertake studies which help identify
whether development can be supported. As well, this account is used to fund the City of
Kitchener Subdivision Development Manual Update. The City hires consultants in order to
complement staff expertise, tools and time required to complete these tasks. Details of planned
studies and the Development Manual Update are provided below.
Storm Water Management Master Plan -$200,000
This Master Plan will guide the City to make sure that the existing infrastructure can
accommodate proposed developments in accordance with the current Official Plan. This study
will also examine the citywide storm water management facilities to understand whether there is
any need for infrastructure upgrades or if new infrastructure is required to address storm water
management including quality and quantity of the storm runoff. Deferral of this item will
eliminate the ability to understand the overall impact to the City's infrastructure and lose the
ability to collect the appropriate funds through the development process.
Upper Blair Watershed Study update - $250,000
As part of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing for the Doon South Phase 2 Community Plan, the
City developed the Upper Blair Drainage Study in 2008/2009. In accordance with this study's
recommendation, the City is required to update the drainage study every 5 years. As such staff is
planning to undertake the study in 2014 to update the watershed modeling; incorporating
GRCA's monitoring results and other relevant legislative requirements. Deferral of this item will
result in non-compliance with the study recommendations and it will negatively affect the
environment.
Sanitary Sewer Model Update and Analysis - $150,000
As part of the ongoing Official Plan update and Pumping Station area planning, the City needs to
update the sanitary sewer model to understand how proposed growth can be accommodated
within existing and planned infrastructure. This funding is also used to complete an area specific
servicing study (if required) during the site plan/subdivision process. Deferral of this item will
eliminate the ability to understand the overall impact to the City's infrastructure and lose the
ability to stage the developments until the required upgrades are completed.
F - 99
Development Manual Update and related works - $ 100,000
In 2010, the City completed a Development Manual which was approved by Council. During the
2010 update, the Waterloo Home Builders Association, the consulting industry, and the City
committed to undertake an update in 2014 to incorporate any new legislative requirements
including various City, Ministry and Regional standards. Therefore an update of the
Development Manual and related works is required. Deferral of this item will result in the City
being in non-compliance with its commitment.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Engineering Studies account is fully funded from Development Charges and as such,
deferring any of these items would have no financial impact on the tax levy. The total funding
required to complete the above projects is $700,000. The City is planning to initiate these
projects in 2014. As of September 30, there is an existing balance of $523,110 in this account.
With additional funds in the amount of $166,000 planned for in 2014, approximately $689,000
will be available to complete these projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
F - 100
l,l:,C l
Alternative Revenue Issue Paper (IN Index
Included in
IP # Description Proposed
Budget?
AR 01 Additional Cost Recovery for Special Events - Non-City Events No
AR 02 Increased Cost Recovery for Bylaw Enforcement No
AR 03 Increased Advertising Revenue Through Sponsorship Strategy No
AR 04 Mobile Catering Licensing Fees No
AR 06 New Cost Recovery for Engineering No
AR 06b - Engineering Driveway Ramp Permit Fee
AR 07 Fee for Fourth and Subsequent Subdivision Review No
* AR 05 Increase User Fees by an Additional 1%, While Providing Additional Funding for
the Leisure Access Card (LAC) is not included as Council has already approved direction
with regard to this item.
F - 101
ISSUE: AR 01—Additional Cost Recovery for Special Events- Non-City Events
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Office of the Chief Administrator- Economic Development
PREPARER: Jeff Young, Manager of Special Events
NET BUDGET IMPACT: $5,000
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE REVENUE PROPOSAL:
Staff has identified an opportunity to increase revenues in Special Events through the chargeback
of services offered through the city to 3rd party event organizers (non-city events).
Throughout the year, Special Events works with a number of 3rd party event organizers who host
both large and small scale events throughout the city. These events typically utilize a combination
of city streets and park spaces to host their events. Examples of these types of events include
Kitchener Blues Festival, Ribfest, LINK Picnic, Oktoberfest,Tri Pride.
Based on event history, staff have identified costs required to run these events in city locations.
Examples of these costs that are currently charged back to the event organizers include repairs to
grass, garbage collection, custodial, traffic, parking, etc.
Special Events will continue to work with internal departments to identify areas where additional
costs can be charged back as actuals to 3rd party event organizers. In addition, Special Events will
detail in their contract the replacement cost of equipment if it is damaged during their event.
Examples of equipment currently loaned to the event organizers from the Special Events
inventory includes tents, tables, chairs, projector, etc.
NET BUDGET IMPACT:
An estimated $5,000 can be further recovered from 3rd party event organizers throughout the
yea r.
RISKS/IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL:
If costs to host their events on city property are increased there is a high likelihood that the
organizers would request additional funding through their Tier1 and Tier2 grant applications. If
these requests were agreed to, there would be no net benefit to the City.
F - 102
ISSUE: AR 02— Increased Cost Recovery for Bylaw Enforcement
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Community Services Department— Bylaw Enforcement
PREPARER: Shayne Turner, Director of Bylaw Enforcement
Kim Kugler, Director of Enterprises
NET BUDGET IMPACT: $32,500
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE REVENUE PROPOSAL:
Staff has identified two opportunities to increase revenues in the Bylaw Enforcement Division:
1. Cost recovery for parking enforcement during Kitchener Ranger games ($25,000):
The bylaw enforcement division currently provides targeted parking enforcement during all
Kitchener Ranger's games (within The Aud parking lots and in surrounding neighbourhoods).
This increased level of service is in response to the challenges experienced by surrounding
neighbourhood residents and it aligns with the commitment made to them during the public
consultation process related to the expansion of The Aud.
During a typical evening there are two enforcement officers on duty. During a Kitchener
Ranger's game these two officers are directed to pay increased attention to The Aud and
surrounding neighbourhoods. In addition a third officer is brought in and assigned specifically
for this increased level of parking enforcement.
The total costs incurred to provide this increased service level over the entire hockey season
is approximately$25,000. Currently those costs are funded through the tax-based operations
of the bylaw enforcement division. Staff is proposing the bylaw enforcement division begin to
recover these costs through revenue generated from the recently introduced paid parking
initiative at The Aud. This will provide a new source of revenue for the bylaw division which is
not tax-based.
Staff recommends this change as funds from paid parking at The Aud were always intended
to fund a variety of future parking and transportation management initiatives, including the
enforcement of current parking regulations. Revenue generated from paid parking at The Aud is
intended to go into a reserve to fund future investments into transportation and parking initiatives at
the facility.
2. New Fees for follow-up inspections ($7,500):
Some existing bylaw violations (e.g. property standards) require the bylaw enforcement
division to conduct follow-up inspections to ensure the homeowner has complied with an
order to remedy a situation by a certain date. On some occasions, when those follow-up
inspections are conducted the work remains incomplete, requiring a Bylaw Enforcement
Officer to conduct a second (and possibly a third) follow-up inspection at a later date.
The City could begin to charge a fee to property owners to assist in recovering staffing costs
when these additional follow-up inspections are required because the homeowner has not
completed required work by the stated deadline. If an inspection reveals that the violation
F - 103
has been corrected, the fee would not apply. Staff would ensure that any documentation
given to a property owner, relating to a Bylaw violation and the required corrective action,
also advises of the potential for follow-up inspection fees to be applied if the work is not
completed in time. A number of municipalities in Ontario have a follow-up inspection fee
mechanism in place, although the amounts of the fees vary.
As a starting point, staff is proposing a fee of$75 per inspection when non-compliance is
observed, with the potential to increase that fee as additional follow-up in sections are
required on the same property. Based on past experience relating to the number of situations
where multiple inspections are required before compliance is achieved, staff estimate the
potential for$7,500 in new revenue to be generated in 2014.
Implementing this new fee will likely require amendments to several existing by-laws, or
alternatively an entirely new by-law. Staff also proposed that any fees charged and not paid
within a designated timeframe would be applied to the tax rolls for the subject property.
NET BUDGET IMPACT:
Over the past three years staff has identified a structural deficit in the bylaw enforcement
division related to fine revenue and part-time wages. For 2013, staff are projecting that chronic
deficit to be in the range of$265,000—$280,000. Council may wish to allocate the new revenues
identified in this issue paper to either: (1) reduce the bylaw enforcement division's chronic deficit
by$32,500, or(2) increase revenue projections within the Division by$32,500 to reduce the tax
supported levy.
RISKS/IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL:
1. Cost recovery for parking enforcement during Kitchener Ranger games: Should Council
choose to allocate $25,000 in revenue from paid parking at The Aud to fund the increased
parking enforcement around The Aud during Kitchener Ranger games, that would reduce the
amount of money available in future years to fund other parking and transportation
initiatives at The Aud.
New Fees for follow-up inspections:This type of fee mechanism is primarily a tool to
encourage compliance and will likely not ensure sustained revenue levels over the long term.
As compliance levels increase, revenue realized through this fee will decrease.
F - 104
ISSUE: AR 03 - Increased Advertising Revenue through Sponsorship Strategy
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Community Services Department
PREPARER: Michael May, DCAO
NET BUDGET IMPACT: $45,000
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE REVENUE PROPOSAL:
The City of Kitchener owns and operates a wide variety of"assets" (e.g. physical buildings,
programs, services, special events) that could potentially be leveraged through increased
advertising opportunities and/or sponsorship partnerships with corporations, organizations and
individuals to generate non-tax based revenue for the municipality.
Currently the City has no formal strategy, policy or program regarding sponsorships. As a result,
there is no coordinated and unified approach to identifying, costing and selling these
opportunities for the benefit of the municipality and its residents/customers. Nor are there any
corporate-wide processes or guidelines in place to encourage, plan, implement, monitor and
control sponsorships. The City's historic ad hoc and decentralized approach to selling
sponsorships and advertising has for the most part focused on cost recovery instead of
maximizing this potential source of non-tax based revenue through sponsorships sold at fair
market value.
On May 14, 2012, City Council directed staff to undertake the development of a Municipal
Sponsorship Strategy. In early 2013, staff began work on a sponsorship strategy that is intended
to provide strategic directions and tactical recommendations on the potential development and
implementation of a formal Municipal Partnership Program.
Staff is continuing to work on a Municipal Sponsorship Strategy which will be presented to the
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee on December 2, 2013. That strategy, and
accompanying staff report, will outline the benefits and risks of proceeding with the
development and implementation of a formal, corporate-wide Municipal Partnership Program,
and will make specific recommendations on work to be completed prior to launching such a
program.
NET BUDGET IMPACT:
While more work is required to complete the Municipal Sponsorship Strategy before presenting
it to City Council on December 2, at this time staff believes there may be an opportunity to add
$45,000 in new advertising revenue to the 2014 budget. Staff have already identified the
following specific items for 2014:
(1) increased advertising revenues at The Aud and Cemeteries ($10,000);
(2) increased ad rates for Leisure magazine ($5,000), and;
(3) new advertising opportunities in Your Kitchener, Best of Times and Leisure ($15,000).
F - 105
In addition to these three opportunities which have already been identified, the Municipal
Sponsorship Strategy will identify other potential opportunities to increase advertising revenues
by$15,000 through items such as:
• advertisements on municipally owned and operated websites;
• facility signage advertisements (e.g. parking garages, aquatics facilities), and;
• advertisements on city fleet vehicles.
In order to pursue these new advertising opportunities and generate an increased level of
revenue for the municipality, it will be necessary to engage the support of an outside vendor
through a competitive RFP process.
RISKS/IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL:
While staff believe it is reasonable to estimate an additional $15,000 in revenue could be
generated through these additional advertising sales, there is a moderate risk this revenue target
will not be achieved in 2014 due to the startup time required prior to implementation of sales
and revenue collection. There is also a public relations risk related to residents' acceptance or
disagreement with this increased level of advertising on municipal assets.
Further details on the potential revenues and implementation costs of a Municipal Partnership
Program will be included in the Municipal Sponsorship Strategy and accompanying staff report
being presented to the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee on December 2, 2013.
F - 106
ISSUE: AR 04— Mobile Catering Licensing Fees
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Finance and Corporate Services— Legislative Services
PREPARER: Patricia Harris— Manager of Licensing
NET BUDGET IMPACT: $5,500
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE REVENUE PROPOSAL:
In the past year, licensing staff have received several enquiries from businesses that wish to offer
their services as mobile caterers. A mobile caterer is hired by a private business to bring a mobile
refreshment vehicle to a private social, sporting or recreational event and serve the patrons of
that event.
Historically, the City has not licensed mobile businesses, but in recent years mobile businesses
have been growing in popularity. This includes businesses such as mobile hairstyling and mobile
catering.
Current City by-laws require caterers at a specific address to obtain a license. Refreshment
vehicles such as hot dog carts, chip wagons and mobile canteen trucks that operate at industrial
and construction sites are also required to obtain a license to ensure public safety. In order to
create a level playing field for all food related businesses and to ensure the health and safety of
the public, the licensing of mobile caterers is also being recommended. Among other things, this
will enable the necessary inspections to take place (e.g., public health and fire). An amendment
to Chapter 586 (Refreshment Vehicles) and Chapter 501 (Business License Fees) will be required
to accommodate this new license category.
The licensing of mobile caterers will not impact the current food truck program operating in
Civic Square. Businesses that sell food only at special events require a Special Event license
only, and not an annual business license.
NET BUDGET IMPACT:
Approximately 10 mobile caterers may be operating in Kitchener. In speaking with the operators,
they have indicated that they are asked regularly to provide catering to private events in the City.
Based on that information a license fee of$550 per mobile caterer is suggested. This fee was
determined by taking the average of the fee for stationary refreshment vehicles such as hot dog
carts and chip wagons ($1,020), caterers at specific addresses ($306) and mobile canteen trucks
($328). This amounts to approximately$5,000 in new license fees for 2014.
Licensing currently has the resources to issue the licenses and provide enforcement.
RISKS/IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL:
As in all business licensing, the number of licensees may not meet expectations. This may be
because a business is no longer operating.
F - 107
ISSUE: AR 06 New Cost Recovery for Engineering
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services - Engineering
PREPARER: Linda Cooper, Supervisor of Client Services
NET BUDGET IMPACT: $37,150 Tax Supported
$ 6,700 Enterprise
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE REVENUE PROPOSAL:
Guiding Principle: Development should pay for itself.
No fees are currently collected for several different types of applications and requests that
Engineering facilitates. Engineering should collect fees for these services to cover staff's time and
associated costs. The new fees are described below and are split into tax supported fees and
enterprise fees.
Tax Supported Fees
Damage Deposit Inspection: Currently the Building department collects a damage deposit on
behalf of Engineering as part of every building permit application. Engineering will complete at
minimum two inspections for the construction work prior to refunding the damage deposit.
Engineering is proposing to collect an admin fee on all damage deposits to cover Engineering admin
staff time and field inspections, the proposed fee is $40 per meter of lot frontage up to a maximum
of$400.
On Site Plumbing Applications:This process is initiated and facilitated by Building. Building will
receive an application for a site servicing permit from a developer who is proposing new or revised
servicing on site, but is not going through the Site Plan Process. Building will circulate the plans to
Engineering, and Engineering staff will review the plans in accordance with the development
manual, DGSSMS specs and in terms of adequate capacity within our system. Building will
complete their review in accordance with the Building code. Once the plans are acceptable,
Engineering will give Building their sign off and then Building will then issue a servicing permit for
the property. Engineering is proposing a review fee for these applications of$475 per application
which is in line with the Engineering Site Servicing Permit fee.
Driveway Ramp Widening Permit: Engineering receives requests for permission/approval from
residences who would like to widen their driveway by cutting their driveway ramps. Engineering
coordinates the approval with Planning and Transportation Services for the driveway cut. Once all
the requirements are satisfied, as per the driveway ramp widening application, then Engineering
will issue a permit for the work. Engineering is proposing an admin fee for this process in the
amount of$150 per application.
F - 108
Enterprise Fees
Sewer Surcharge Review: Engineering receives requests from property owners and developers to
surcharge additional flows to the sanitary system. Engineering will run the additional flows through
the sanitary model and grant approval for the surcharge. The proposed Sewer Surcharge Fee will
be $850 per application which will cover the staff time required to facilitate these requests.
Capacity Analysis Request: Engineering receives capacity analysis requests from developers prior
to submitting a development application, or for a zone change application for a property.
Engineering reviews the development proposal and determines if the sanitary system can
accommodate the increase in flow. Engineering is proposing to collect a new fee for a Capacity
Analysis Request in the amount of$500 per application.
NET BUDGET IMPACT:
The total increase in revenue is projected to be $43,850. The breakdown is noted in the table
below.
I I Sol
Tax Supported
Damage Deposit Inspection $40 per meter of lot frontage $10,400
to a maximum of$400
On Site Plumbing Applications $475 per application 50 $23,750
Driveway Ramp Widening $150 per application 20 $3,000
Total Tax Supported Additional
Revenue
$37,150
Enterprise
Sewer Surcharge Review $850 per review 2 $1,700
Capacity Analysis Request $500 per application 10 $5,000
Total Enterprise Additional
Revenue $6,700
J
Total Additional Revenue $43,850
RISKS/IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL:
All the fees proposed are new and could be viewed negatively by developers and residents.
F - 109
ISSUE: AR06b— Engineering Driveway Ramp Permit Fee
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services— Engineering Services
PREPARER: Linda Cooper, Supervisor of Client Services
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
During Operating Budget Review on December 12, 2013, staff were asked to provide further
details on the Engineering alternative revenue sources in issue paper AR06. Staff are in the
process of compiling a comparison of these fees from surrounding municipalities. This issue
paper addresses only driveway ramp permit fees.
Engineering receives requests for permission/approval from residents who would like to widen
their driveway by cutting the curbs and removing boulevards to extend the driveway ramp.
Engineering coordinates the approval with Planning and Transportation Services for the driveway
widening. Once all the requirements are satisfied as per the driveway ramp widening application
then Engineering will issue a permit for the work. Engineering staff propose collecting an
administration fee for this process in the amount of$150.00 per application.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Engineering will receive the application from the applicant and circulate the proposal to both
Transportation Services to ensure compliance with on street parking regulations and construction
staging safety along with Planning to ensure compliance with applicable by-laws. Engineering
reviews the application to assess the impacts to the boulevard, street lights, utility conflicts, fire
hydrants etc., followed by completing a minimum of two inspections; pre and post construction
to ensure work was completed to City standards.
In accordance with the regulating work on city roads by-law if a resident does not obtain a
permit, they could be charged.
In comparison to other local municipalities (City of Guelph, City of Cambridge and City of
Waterloo), their Operations staff completes the curb cuts at their own rates, which would include
an administrative component. City of Kitchener is the only local municipality that allows private
contractors to complete this work. All municipalities have similar by-laws that require any work
within the right of way including curb cutting, to receive a permit or permission by the
municipality for that work or the proponent could be charged.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
As part of issue paper AR06, Engineering has proposed a new fee of$150.00 per application for
driveway ramp widening to recover a portion of staff's time. It is estimated that Engineering will
issue 20 permits a year, totaling$3,000 in revenue.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
F - 110
ISSUE: AR 07— Fee for Fourth and & Subsequent Subdivision Review
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services - Engineering
PREPARER: Linda Cooper, Supervisor of Client Services
NET BUDGET IMPACT: $25,000
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE REVENUE PROPOSAL:
Currently the Engineering drawing review for Subdivision development is paid through an
administration fee which amounts to 4.5% of the construction value of the development. This
fee is to cover all aspects for which Engineering is involved in the approval of the subdivision. On
average the engineering drawings for the subdivision go through 3-4 review submissions prior to
approval of the drawings. Occasionally, subdivision plans are submitted which require more than
three reviews, occasioning additional staff time for engineering. In these cases the Engineering
Consultant is not completing the required revisions as requested by Engineering and/or in
accordance with the Development manual. For these cases, Engineering suggests establishing an
additional review fee for the subdivision drawings for those developments that are constantly
resubmitting drawings for review without addressing Engineering's past review comments and
standards. Additional reviews occasioned by circumstances outside of the Engineering
Consultant's control will not be subject to this additional fee.
The Engineering Review Fee of$5000/submission will be applied to any subdivision development
upon submitting their fourth and subsequent Engineering drawing set for review. It is
anticipated that this fee will encourage thorough preparation of submissions by Engineering
Consultants.
NET BUDGET IMPACT:
The estimated revenue the Subdivision Review Fee will generate is$25,000 per year.
RISKS/IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL:
Industry may view this new fee as unfair so it will be applied reasonably by the Director of
Engineering and may be waived for minor changes such as items missed by City staff in previous
reviews, changes in standards, and minor drawing. Since the fee is tied to issues of non-
compliance, increased compliance levels may cause a decrease in actual revenue realized over
time.
F - 111
Stratec0c Initiatives Issue Paper (IP) Index
Included in
IP # Description Proposed
Budget?
SI 01 Improve Citywide Bylaw Enforcement No
Improve Customer Service and Efficiency through Mobile
SI 02 Technology - REVISED No
S103 Improve Infrastructure Data Management to Better Support No
Spending Decisions - REVISED
S104 Proactive Street Tree Maintenance - REVISED No
F - 112
ISSUE: SI 01— Improve Citywide Bylaw Enforcement
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Community Services— By-law Enforcement
PREPARER: Shayne Turner, Director of By-law Enforcement
BUDGET IMPACT: $179,409 tax
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGIC INITIATIVE:
Respond to a significant increase in bylaw enforcement service requests from the community by
shortening response times and ensuring bylaw officers are available 24/7 to respond to calls from
the public.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
On August 26, 2013, City Council received the results of a service level review of the Bylaw
Enforcement Division which demonstrated that over the past several years the numbers of
service requests being made by residents has grown significantly. For example:
• 80% increase in noise complaints from 2002 to 2012 (2,068 to 3,783);
• 220% increase in total calls for service for Noise Officers (includes other by-law types)
from 2002 to 2012 (2,224 to 4,979);
• 300% increase in parking complaints from 2002 to 2012 (1,330 to 4,014).
In addition to a significant increase in the number of calls received from the public, since 2002
the Bylaw Enforcement Division has been required to provide services in a number of new areas.
These include (but are not limited to): licensing inspections, open air burning, snow events,
student housing, public nuisance, graffiti, site alterations and tree cutting bylaws, towing and
snow dumping on roadways.
At the same time as service demands have increased within the Bylaw Enforcement Division,
staffing levels have remained relatively constant. As a result, during peak periods (late evenings
and weekends), response times can be as long as 3 hours depending on the nature of the
complaint and the time of day when it is received.
In addition to slower than acceptable response times, approximately 26 hours per week, there is
no Bylaw Officer on duty to respond to complaints from the public (e.g. noise, public nuisance,
backyard fires). The number of calls received during times when no officer was available to
respond has increased from 130 in 2008 to 301 in 2012. This has essentially meant there was no
response to those calls, or a very late response which is often ineffective given the nature of the
issues.
The addition of two Bylaw Enforcement Officers would provide the following benefits:
1. Improved response times by filling gaps in the existing staffing schedule and ensuring an
officer is on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to respond to public complaints.
The addition of 2 FTEs would allow for a schedule that will provide full 24/7 coverage. Staff
has experienced an increased public expectation with regard to not being able to access
F - 113
enforcement services during certain times of the week. Now that residents are able to call
the main bylaw enforcement line 24/7 and get a live response, they also expect an officer will
be available 24/7 to respond to a call in a timely manner.
2. Improved response times by providing for extra officer coverage during times when the City
traditionally experiences high call volumes.
The two additional FTEs would be assigned as Noise Enforcement Officer and would perform
enforcement duties related to the noise bylaw, as well as the Open Air Burning, Public
Nuisance and Traffic By-laws. They would also play a key role in supporting Parking
Enforcement, particularly during evenings, overnight and weekends. Current staffing levels
often allow for only one Noise Enforcement officer to be on shift during peak demand periods
such as late evenings or weekends. The addition of these two positions would provide for
improved response times during peak periods and will lessen concerns expressed from the
public when they are not allow able to receive a timely response to their complaint.
3. Mitigate safety risks to officers by providing for increased times when officers can
support/back-up one another when responding to a call with an elevated level of risk; as
opposed to only one officer attending to the call.
Staff are noticing an increase in the number of incidents where an officer's safety has been
jeopardized, either by a specific incident or by an identifiable "near miss."The overlap of
officer coverage provided by the addition of two FTEs would mitigate some of these risks by
allowing for a joint response (officers teamed together) when responding to calls where
elevated risks are identified.
4. Increased bylaw enforcement presence/capacity in Lower Doon.
On June 24, 2013, City Council directed staff to consider additional bylaw enforcement in
Lower Doon and Doon Pioneer Park as part of the 2014 budget process. This proposal to add
two FTEs will allow for increased capacity to provide an increased level of enforcement and
presence in the Lower Doon area to focus on: 1) proactively engaging the tenants to help
mitigate the nuisance concerns identified; and 2) providing for zero tolerance enforcement
where circumstances are warranted.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This initiative requires two additional full time equivalent (2 FTE) Bylaw Enforcement Officers.
Total cost of two additional Bylaw Enforcement Officers is$179,409 (including salary, fringe and
administrative expenses). In addition to the service improvements and shorter response times
that would result from the addition of two Bylaw Enforcement Officers, it is anticipated those
new officers would generate approximately$40,000 in fine revenue (combined) annually that
would assist in reducing the $215,000 chronic deficit identified in the April 2013 variance report.
ALIGNMENT TO THE CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
This proposal is linked to the Community Priority of Quality of Life.
F - 114
ISSUE: 5102— Improve Customer Service and Efficiency through Mobile
Technology - REVISED
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Finance and Corporate Services— Information Technology
PREPARER: Dan Murray— Interim Director, Information Technology
(519-741-2200 ext. 7825)
BUDGET IMPACT: $102,767 tax/$102,767 enterprise ($205,534 total)
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGIC INITIATIVE:
Further implement and support the use of mobile technology at the City of Kitchener to improve
handling of citizen requests for service, provide faster response times to citizens, and improve
efficiency and effectiveness through better use of data.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The Corporate Technology Strategic Plan (2010) identified "mobile computing for staff on the
move" as one of the four key strategic areas of focus for the City. The mobile computing strategy
was developed in 2013 in response to that recommendation and outlines the requirements to
position the City to bolster the use mobile computing for members of the public, field workers
and mobile staff to achieve the following:
1. Improved handling of citizen requests for service
Increasing the use of mobile technology will be required in order for the City to establish a
"closed loop" for two-way communications with citizens which forms part of the customer
service vision. This means that citizens will be able to request service through any number of
channels (e.g., mobile application, City website, Corporate Contact Centre) and this request
can in turn be routed to front-line service staff via mobile technology. Once the request has
been completed, information on the status of the request can then be immediately relayed
back to the requestor by the field worker using mobile technology and also be tracked for
reviewing performance against service levels in real time. This presents an opportunity for
improvements in areas such as By-Law enforcement, where complainants have an interest in
follow-up communications on the status of their requests. With the use of mobile
technology, By-Law enforcement officers could update the status of calls in real time which in
turn can be relayed to the complainant at any hour of the day. The addition of mobile
computing resources is one of the essential actions required to establish this higher level of
customer service.
2. Faster response times for citizens
Providing technology to front-line employees enables the City to reduce the need for
requests for service to be handled by multiple staff members before they are acted upon in
the field. Over the long term, this will increase response times for citizens on selected
services. For example, graffiti reporting is presently reported via a phone call to the
Corporate Contact Centre, which is handled by a Customer Service Representative, entered
into a work management system, prioritized by a Supervisor and assigned via a crew meeting
to workers in the field. Using mobile technology, a resident could conceivably snap a picture
of graffiti using their smartphone and immediately submit it with location coordinates via the
F - 115
City's mobile application. An automated workflow could immediately route the work request
to the appropriate Supervisor or crew, enabling a much faster response.
3. Improve efficiency and effectiveness through better use of data
Mobile technology will enable field workers to access better information in the field (e.g.,
infrastructure drawings and maps, property data, customer history, service request details,
etc.) and will also allow field workers to capture data while still in the field. This will improve
the ability of field workers to diagnose issues quickly, make better decisions, and complete
their work efficiently and effectively. As an example, utility service connection details were
historically maintained in hardcopy files. More recently, all of this data was converted to an
electronic format in the Geographic Information System (GIS). Without mobile technology,
field workers would still be required to print out hardcopy maps and diagrams, which can
become outdated and do not provide the ability to capture details in the field based on actual
physical conditions or work completed. Implementing mobile technology ensures that
workers are using the most current information when undertaking repairs and maintenance.
Mobile technology will also enable field workers to capture data remotely, reducing the need
for the information to be handled twice, once in the field on paper and once in the office
where it would be entered into a system. This would apply to many maintenance and
inspection activities, such as routine valve maintenance, fire hydrant inspections, etc.
Implementing mobile technology represents a significant new service offering for the Information
Technology (IT) division and will have many facets, including:
• Implementation of citizen-facing mobile applications to engage citizens and improve the
handling of requests for service
• Increased use and management of mobile devices (tablets, mobile phones and laptops)
• Improved support for existing and new applications with a mobile interface , including a
Customer Relationship Management System
• Development of a Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) mobile policy and procedures
In order to achieve the objectives outlined in the mobile computing strategy, dedicated staff
resources will be required to both implement the services and to support them on a continuing
basis. Without these additional staff resources, significant core services will not be properly
established to support the growing demand of mobile computing initiatives and future mobile
computing projects will fail to meet their objectives.
The staff resources required are:
• One Mobile Computing Infrastructure Support Specialist who is required for developing and
maintaining the "back end" technologies to support mobile computing, including wireless
technology, application delivery, web servers and technologies, device management, etc.
• One Mobile Computing Device Support Specialist who is required for managing the end user
device lifecycle, including device specifications, device testing, laptop builds, end user support
procedures and training, escalated issue resolution, etc.
F - 116
During the December 12, 2013 Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting, additional
information was requested in regards to mobile computing technology projects and the impact
if only one of the two recommended positions were approved in the 2014 budget.
There are two main work activities that will influence the overall success of mobile computing
initiatives at the City:
• The ability of the IT division to deploy, manage and support mobile computing
technologies on an ongoing day-to-day basis.
• Well managed mobile computing projects to deploy mobile computing solutions to the
various operating areas in the City. These projects will include policy, infrastructure and
support set up as well as queued and future/ongoing projects to deliver the solutions to
the end users. These projects will introduce increased ongoing support and maintenance
activities from IT staff.
The two staff positions being recommended are needed to provide the ongoing day-to-day
support, maintenance for end-users of the technology and for the continual improvement of
mobile computing technologies. The following table shows a high-level breakdown of the
anticipated % of time spent on various work activities for the two recommended staff.
Work Activities Mobile Mobile Device
(numbers represent %of time) Infrastructure Specialist
Specialist
Mobile Device Policy and Service Offerings 5% 10%
(procurement, support processes, BYOD)
Enterprise Laptop Management 5% 20%
Enterprise Management of Smartphone and Mobile 10% 10%
Tablet Devices
Mobile Systems Network Connectivity and Mobile 50% 20%
Application Delivery
Mobile End User Support 10% 20%
Mobile Computing Projects 20% 20%
100% 100
Should only one of the two recommended positions be approved, it will negatively impact the
ability of IT to support increased mobile computing required to deliver on future mobile and e-
services goals. It would limit the ability to develop the core services required to support
increased mobile computing goals and would also severely limit the ability to deliver mobile
computing projects. It will not only take longer to address the number of mobile computing
project opportunity areas that have been identified but the ongoing success of each deployed
mobile solution will be at risk without the required staff to provide the ongoing support.
A sampling of mobile computing opportunities by operating area and a highlight of expected
benefits of each is attached. It is important to note that this is not a comprehensive list and is
intended only to provide a sense of the benefits that can be realized through increased mobile
computing. Full cost-benefit analysis cannot be completed until the mobile solutions and
F - 117
business process improvements can be fully defined.
As highlighted in the November 18, 2013 Planning and Strategic Initiatives meeting, many of the
identified mobile computing opportunities offer considerable efficiencies throughout various City
operations that will provide a solid return on the investment in staff to support the e-services
and mobile computing. IT will report back on the effectiveness of the overall Mobile Computing
Strategy and specific mobile computing projects through regular updates through IT Governance
and to Council.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This initiative requires two additional full time equivalent (2 FTE) Mobile Computing staff in the IT
division. The staff resources required to deliver on the mobile computing strategy will be funded
through a split of tax supported and internal recoveries from the enterprise divisions. The total
annual funding required is $205,534, with a tax-supported increase of$102,767 (50/50 split).
ALIGNMENT TO THE CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
This proposal is linked to the Effective and Efficient Government Foundations of Information
Technology. The mobile computing strategy is directly referenced in both the Corporate
Technology Strategic Plan, The Customer Service Strategy as well as in the City's Strategic Plan.
The following is an excerpt from the City's Strategic Plan:
"As the world of technology moves forward at a rapid pace, the city's information
technology group supports the technological infrastructure for many of our
financial and operational services. With increasing demands for real-time
information, the city is looking to bolster the use of mobile technology to help staff
report on activities remotely from the field."
F - 118
`'b
papa >
e
J���`ecoi >
wa �a
ay,D.b
\c`�e OQ ocye
y Q
\cc�ea J Q-ey e�j°e >
�0 5
cap Qey
met w° °p b°
T o
e a, f0 v o s °
`oA 5e y o v Y v ' �O
a °
of o O a ° ° sue
c 4� o o -a > 3 `o O v o
Loy ° v > a) a) o y 3 u ° °-
Jey a o 2 y ° u E
o _
v ° 3 a> E .° v Y E o ° 3 v Q °
° o o s - U o
m ° U v `O
N `0 N v Y N u
a) a, v 3 v o
tea, o � � o ._ U m a ;
0 o
o _
v t -0 o o .E w y O - o a) m w° v
o u j y a) 0 E N a
.S a o v bD a E N v v ° U ._ Q
.. N
ti N .' ° .� v ° v �' a) o U .� -0 CL - 'x Q
o v m a) io v E y v '.' _ a) a) o a) Q
N E C ? X y C o E C E Y w Y U O N
C E O Q a) a) M 0 Q �_ O a) ` C N
-O Q N O O C -2 ro ¢ t .T+ >.
a y E Q O > a 3 - E v a°0 V. a) O - t
y o y 0 o a n v > o u 3
w E a o Q Q.° r -0 a) M a a) Q 3 N Y
aa) v fl-t :{ o > ° f0 ) o E a) v v a) m m o
o °
E ° o v U v .0 E °o w M y > o .E ° o
v v Y > y 3 v 3 ,-i .E .� a`) a`)
0 w N a) .— = -6 U N hOa N ro C a) > In O y Y O C O
o .2 ° m m m E Q ° n 0 v a v v ° 4 0 bD
a v ° N o s E ° E --° o v E .Q
° O E O :° O m o O ° ° _ v
° ° a) _ u U U U v o 3 o v °- a) O O v Q
Q > C O O O j O C a) c-I -6 .�+ Y .O+ y 0 E
L
v � v .� y Q E in 3 y °' '^ E E u
v � o E v 0 3 ° Q o tin v
y E .2 U a) a) a) y '° v v ° o
Q N.E 3 bD bD E � y E � °0 N ° a, U o m ° v y
N
a) a) v
E ° E y y- y `O m y ° ° ° E o v y v o v t
s° O 3 v 3 Y a .E o y O .E ¢ na $ 3
Q U 0 v U - m tin v .� C) o ° >,
° u a o Y u
a > '° o m m O ' c
v aa) .v U U bD Q M 3 E o U M T ° O a) m - °
_ ..
H w N O Y C f0 hp W a) N c a) -6 U > c
° Q N C ° Q O .O+ .O+ N Q.O >, aL+ NO O p U C U 3
y o a) g v o 3 E > Q o E y '� o y o ' au,
.a N v bD E._
0
U Y O} $ v m .v v E ° v 'a) v ° Q U
as y ° a y o m y 4 v a ° o E s ° o ° a ° o °
v ,� 3 U '.�
CL c -0'� tin :; v s ° O Y .o Q v 'T s Q U o
C _
Q ° Y c > a ° O E Q °- ° u o v E > u t °- y >
3 O LL a) a3 O a) E E -0 u o a v - 3 '� 'v v ° ° >
c O D a, s ° - a) V ° UM O -
3 U a 3 ° o o °_ 3 u t o 0 u aa)) E o y E N -0
a v O E E o E o Y y E E v = U o Q y ^ °
a) _ a) - E v a) ba _ v U a) Q
CL ° W ° o a° o o a, O 3 _ > O a, v Q CL a)y
en -2 o O o > ° N `o Q 3 v v v y = v o ° °o v ° a v v O
v t y v a° v y o v 3 E E C -0 a) 2 aa)) m aa))
v Q� > y
E o y .b m ° o y m 3 v 'E v E '� v _ o
v o ° 3 3 s -0 O v .v y s o o > a, m
E _ - -
° O ° O o E o U °� v n n a a u 3 N 3 -a° 3 -a O
° o . O ; " a) " t E E v =° o w v C C v o U
?+ 0) c u v E o N= o a- 3 v v a '� y ° E ° E U c
v
N
.2 C ` '6n o -3 °- aa,
U
m s t v v o 3 ° v E w v v y O 3 Q ° M U m CL
Q y > a `O -0 v v N Q a v ° N o o a) = o c
c �° E ° ° 3 Q Q a, ° v ° s E
-° o s o ° - v v '� = E v = E y u -� v v > E M
'- - .� .- x
M cu � � v 3 E O u s° O y u Y 3 ° t > ° ¢ X ¢
v
m E
O `o
o u °
U N
bD
'.bD OU a Q ',. C bD° 0 a) o
0 0
C n O U
s x m E A a
yv a)
C a y
a) C U O
W In O
°
C) Q 3 $ .Lu . . E
o '° ° a3 u j j bD
0.� E Q > v
o '- '. ° o v v s
St d N w !� m w U u' Y Y Y O ¢
�e
ca cap
aye era '��
\c`�e OQ ocye
y
�0 5
o m '-
�o�
E
ey`o s v u E v t > N ° 3 v Q
m v y 3 o a s ^
.MY >. 3 -
ic o o m U tin m o
O U > v = ax) O m m y >
t E a, Y
o ° N E ° 0 ° o ° N
U Q
Lr- O m > O a) a) m a) V?
A a y ° m a) E m O v
1A
- L p
'V a) Y a) -6 N O - N Q a) +m+ O O > N
m v a m Q'., v o E E ^ u O ^
O E 3 m m H m t0 N p y0 I a) � m
`m p v ° E am o Oo E aa)
C
U >. -p y O t O .� '6 E O U > '6 3
y
0 w —
E a a '° Q � °
— tin E m V 3 o bn >
° s ° a) E .E v v ', ° Y > � o ° o bn M N 3 y _
a) o E = n Y `o v
m b v m ° 'E a°n— o a ew� ° Q
_ —
r0 3 a, � ° a, o � ¢ a,
= 3 '�°— a Y E Q Q o a o .�
° tin a) — _ U 3 y ° n
m m m Q 3 t v > Q 76 v p > O m
a o .� ° c H v N y v y U o m m -o
E 0
a) E ° m bn o 3 .� o a) O v
m a) y
v
w E 0/ o O u y Q nn v O `
° ° Q E — .� o
m y > s v a) aa, ami E E v
o O o > m y u > ; '— > o v
Q s > ° a, ._
O E > U a v °— > o E '� o E
bn -a m m o s o Q 'Q Q U m N o
w E E cL v ° v E m > a) °
m v .3 o O O Q V o s a b o
Q E E tiny v a n v
a
E b ° o 'v o o a) o v
o — O — E y v s o
a .,
U y E m E � 3 o > > U
a — — > o
m a) Y m E
o O tin au) t .E o E m U m E
au, 3 .E y E > o E Q v Q- Q
m E v X t > v a) v
., '-
o °) u aqi U u' v v o a)
E - 'm t o f ,v o N b Y E 4 m a m pn aa) y
Q E o E > a) -> m a, o t p m n
a) ..� bn' -c E
° nt Q ;g y ° = a) E m O o 0
U
v o o Q O v Q v tin v E a°
m O y o m 'v ° a o o E v a E
'-
a� a°/i s tin `° s ._ o
CL m m N m m 1 S bn +�.+ ? = U fl- a) m �+
O >. Y o U m fo v 0/ E -a m
tin m v x v m .a)
++ m �) O N 3 a) m O m m 0 c a) y ou a) > m u O
U
m
E
V E —
m y +m+ m in t0 Q Q L a) O m
w °m°N ° m 3 " m 'E — N ° E a �
._ m v m o > v m ;g o o > m u >
cp m y1 N E Y O jy O in m 3 Q a) a, y y 0 Q O
C a) +0+
5): C N .0 C y N >. Z
H y > N Q m hn `/ m w � bn bn
N -
H > m Q m m m O a) m O bn
w
W y 4t 4t O O EO a) O a) N O a) -p C
o m O O N O L
d U U O O_ m -o
N m O O am+ N y a
LL ii .� ii -o io Q in O U in > in
cr i.
E:
d '
a) m hn m
v m o m °— m
bn
m V5,
S.' > Q a)) D
a) 3' in m bn
E
:: 3 t m
E v v m y
LL m w 12 F - 120
ISSUE: SI 03—Improve Infrastructure Data Management to Provide the Basis for Future
Grants and to Better Support Spending Decisions-REVISED
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services—Administration
PREPARER: Hans Gross, Director of Asset Management
BUDGET IMPACT: $34,205 tax/$35,602 enterprise ($69,807 total)
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGIC INITIATIVE:
Enter and maintain infrastructure data required to manage assets through detailed Asset Management
Plans, to assist in optimizing decisions by staff and Council regarding capital infrastructure maintenance
and replacement and to provide the basis for future applications for upper tier infrastructure grants.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
Infrastructure Services Administration currently has two full time staff(temporary positions) spending
80%of their time on staff time entry and 20%of their time on asset data entry.The city's mobile time
entry process will be phased in over one to three years. As the City transitions into the mobile time entry
process,there is a need to transition the two staff positions to asset data entry and data maintenance.
The asset data entry and data maintenance process is a vital and first step in the development of detailed,
long-term asset management plans which is a legislated requirement of Bill 141—an Act to enact the
Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2013,which received its second reading December 5, 2013 and
is awaiting its third and final reading. The asset management plans will result in establishing sustainable
financial plans for the management of assets within Facilities Management, Parks, Forestry, Cemeteries
and Golf Courses which have a replacement value of at least$546 million. Asset data entry and data
maintenance (i.e. asset condition, location, maintenance process cost activity) is required for Facilities
Management, Parks, Forestry, Cemeteries, and Golf Courses and is currently not being done by anyone.
The need for this work and the associated additional staff will also support many of the recommendations
of the Operations Division audit related to improved data collection and management to support decision-
making.
Furthermore,the need for data management is based on the Asset Management Program Roadmap. The
Roadmap's first priority and first step is to establish a Data Management Plan, which will consist of data
collection, data quality control and data entry/data maintenance.This builds the foundation for financial
decision-making and sustainability of the city's assets and for the development of detailed asset
management plans which form the basis for future applications for upper tier infrastructure grants.
Currently one position is funded from the Cityworks Capital account. The funding from the Cityworks
account will stop in 2014.The second position is currently funded from the Water and Gas Utilities.The
funding from Water and Gas will stop in 2015. As these positions are needed for the long-term, the
current temporary funding and employee status should be converted to a long-term approach as well.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This initiative requires one additional full time equivalent (1 FTE) in 2014 to assist with asset data entry.
The position will be funded through a sharing of tax supported and internal recoveries from the enterprise
divisions. The total annual funding required is$69,807, with a tax-supported increase of$34,205 and an
enterprise increase of$35,602. The second additional FTE will be required in 2015.
ALIGNMENT TO THE CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
This proposal is linked to the Effective and Efficient Government Foundations of Asset Management and
Financial Management.
F - 121
ISSUE: SI 04— Proactive Street Tree Maintenance - REVISED
FUND: Operating
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services—Operations
PREPARER: Greg Hummel, Manager Park Planning, Development and Operations
BUDGET IMPACT: $169,500 tax
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGIC INITIATIVE:
Implement proactive street tree maintenance which will better support the quality of street trees
within the City of Kitchener.
RATIONALE/ANALYSIS:
The City of Kitchener has an existing inventory of approximately 60,000 street trees which should
benefit from proactive maintenance including the activities of street raising, structural pruning,
and timely stumping. In addition, there are over 800 hectares of natural/hazard and park lands
that are covered with trees and forest that need additional maintenance to ensure the quality of
the trees, as well as the safety of Kitchener residents.
The first activity of street raising ensures safe passage beneath the trees for pedestrians, cyclists
and trucks/automobiles. The street raising process needs to be completed every three to five
years to ensure that the limbs are not obstructing safe passage or hindering views. Street raising
becomes one of the most important proactive maintenance activities when dealing with the
existing tree inventory. With the limited number of foresters within the City's labour force, when
faced with balancing one priority versus another immediate priority, tree raising gets delayed.
Delaying this activity impacts safe passage.
The second activity is structural pruning. This new approach to pruning establishes acceptable
growing patterns for the trees. Completing this type of maintenance early in the life of a tree
takes more time initially, but over the long term growth of the tree will reduce overall
maintenance, especially in later years. This time invested early is labour intensive, but as the
trees grow, the need for severe street tree raising and the use of costly equipment is reduced.
This is healthier for the tree and reduces the overall maintenance costs of the tree.
The final activity is the immediate stumping of trees as they are removed. Currently stumps are
removed approximately one year after the branches and stems are removed. The additional
proposed staff would be able to assist with the immediate stumping, allowing the tree
replacement to happen within a growing season.
During the December 12, 2013 Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting, additional
information was requested about whether the requested positions could be hired seasonally.
The Forestry Division has used temporary labourers previously to perform street raising,
structural pruning and stumping. There were issues associated with using temporary staff from
the perspective of additional training requirement, the hours available for work, and the
technical skills needed to do the job.
The work performed by the Forestry section is a year round function. With over 60,000 street trees
and over 1400 hectares of natural area, the work load for this area continues to grow, like the City's
F - 122
tree inventory, resulting in an ever increasing backlog of work. The type of equipment used and the
work performed by this section is specialized and requires trained staff to carry out the day to day
activities safely and efficiently. Temporary employees provide valuable assistance from a physical
labour perspective, but there is a continual change-over of this staff resulting in the need to re-train on
a regular basis. In the past, the time spent training the temporary employee has been very beneficial
to the individual as they take this learned skill and find full time jobs elsewhere. The training of new
temporary labourers in Forestry on an annual basis, while necessary, does not provide the support in
the completion of daily tasks and the ever increasing workload.The lack of experience of the new staff
puts additional work load pressure on the full time staff as they must provide guidance and direction
to ensure the work site is operated in a safe and efficient manner. Due to the limitations within the
existing collective agreement on Temporary Labourers, these labourers' efforts can be minimized by
the number of hours they can work in a day.
Temporary staff typically work from early April until the end of December assisting with various
Forestry functions.The temporary staff is restricted in the help they can actually provide due to lack of
training (e.g. tree climbing, tree felling, chainsaw permits and safety procedures), license restrictions,
as well as lack of experience in the field does not permit the temporary staff to use the aerial truck,
chipper,and truck&trailer.
All Temporary Labourers and seasonal staff are required to complete training sessions each year
as part of their hiring process and Health & Safety. These training sessions are mandatory and
take a great amount of time each year but are essential to the safety of the seasonal staff and
their co-workers. Each year, the City invests 12.5 days of training for Forestry temporary labourers to
ensure the safety of the labourer, co-workers and citizens. Examples of training include fuel handling,
chainsaw permit, chipping, stumping, etc. The training sessions require the involvement of full time
employees to assist in the training or to act as a mentor/trainer in many of the day to day functions.
Based on the above noted number of days(for one labourer),the City would be investing 37.5 days(or
approximately$9,000)of training to a seasonal complement (3 temp staff) in Forestry without actually
completing forestry work.
With Forestry being a twelve month operation, when the temporary staff leaves for the season, it
creates a void resulting in the reduction in the Forestry crews. The bulk of the woodlot/natural area
forestry work is carried out during the winter months and with the need to address low hanging
limbs/structural pruning and now with the work needed due to EAB, response to ice and wind storms
the loss of temporary labourers, minimizes the work that is being completed.
Having full-time staff, the requirements to train and assess temporary hires on an on-going basis
would be eliminated and that time would be spent doing productive work. While new full time hires
would require initial training, once trained the amount of time spent in that area would decrease.The
additional full time staff would add to the current staff complement to assist with the work load on a
year round basis. Part of this year round work is done with the assistance of staff from other sections
of Operations when they are available which is typically in the winter months. By increasing the core
complement of trained staff, the City would be able to utilize more staff from other areas when
available to address the workload situation as there would be more fully trained Foresters to provide
direction to the supplemented work crews.
F - 123
With over 2000 requests in the system for low hanging limbs from trees that are obstructing safe
passage or hindering views for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic, these need to be completed as
soon as possible.These low limbs result in additional costs to repair the damaged vehicles (public and
private) and demerit points being issued against employees. While Forestry attempts to deal with
these issues in a timely manner the volume of work is far greater than what the current staff
complement is able to deal with and against changing priorities.
Reviewing the impact of the ice storm on December 22, 2013, Forestry staff has determined that
over 30%of the damage would not have occurred if the trees had been structurally pruned many
years ago. Trees in a woodlot grow straight with tall trunks as the tree competes with
neighbouring trees for sunlight. In the case of a boulevard tree with abundant sunlight all around
the canopy, the tree develops multiple and competing trunks and leaders. This growth habit
becomes easily damaged due to the poor structure and has a lesser life expectancy. By
proactively pruning new trees to ensure proper structure is established, long term benefits will
show by less street raising required in the future, healthier trees and less impact from
occurrences of future wind and ice storms.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This initiative requires two additional full time equivalent (2 FTE) staff and one temporary
labourer at a combined cost of $188,000. Staff will also require a chipper truck and necessary
attachments to address the structural pruning and chipping of branches at a cost of$61,500. The
combined cost is $249,500, of which $80,000 is already included in the 2014 Growth Allocation,
reducing the additional budget request to $169,500.
The chart below outlines the costs of the original proposal (2 full time staff, one temporary
labourer) and the information requested by Council (3 temporary labourers).
Original Proposal Only Temporary Staff
Staffing Costs $188,000 $126,500
Equipment $61,500 $61,500
Less: Growth Allocation -$80,000 -$80,000
Budget Request $169,500 $108,000
ALIGNMENT TO THE CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
This proposal is linked to the Community Priority of Environment.
F - 124