HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-17-003 - 2017 Budget Package (Final Budget Day)
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: January 23, 2017
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning, 519-741-2200 x 7353
PREPARED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning, 519-741-2200 x 7353
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: December 21, 2016
REPORT NO.: FCS-17-003
SUBJECT: 2017 Final Budget
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
For Discussion
BACKGROUND:
Detailed reports and presentations on the Operating and Capital budgets were
considered by Committee in November. This final budget day package supplements the
information provided previously and is primarily meant to:
Provide updates on the Operating and Capital Budgets
Provide information required by the Municipal Act
REPORT:
Tax Supported Operating Budget
As highlighted to Council during the operating budget presentation, the proposed
operating budget:
1. Is significantly impacted by other levels of government
2. Holds most tax supported City services status quo
3. Includes growth funding that could be reallocated in 2017
4. Is increasingly exposed to rising costs of Workplace Safety Insurance Board
(WSIB), and
5. Includes increased investments in utility infrastructure
The starting net tax levy increase for 2017 is 1.75%, but Council has several options to
consider that could change this rate. As part of final budget deliberations, Council will
discuss a number of items that could impact the net tax levy including:
Additional assessment growth beyond what was budgeted
Growth funding allocated for the Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre
Additional funding for the City’s growing WSIB liability
Enhancing Integrity Commissioner Services
Arts Sustainability Funding
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
FINAL - 1
Enterprise Operating Budgets
The City enterprises are stand-alone business lines that are self-funding through their
own rates (i.e. are not funded through property taxes). They include: Golf, Building,
Parking, Natural Gas, Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Stormwater.
The projected financial year end results in 2016 have been updated for each of the
enterprises based on recent activity. As well, the budget forecast for Wastewater has
been updated based on new Regional cost information. Changes to the enterprise
projected actuals or budget forecast are highlighted below.
Golf - Projection is consistent with previous projection and 2017-2021budgets are
unchanged.
Building- Projection is $709,000 better than originally forecast. Revenues are
higher due to increased permit activity at the end of the year for both residential and
non-residential building types. The 2017-2021 budgets are unchanged.
Parking - Projection is $206,000 better than originally forecast. Expenses are lower
due to savings in discretionary expenses. Revenues are also higher due to
increased demand. The 2017-2021 budgets are unchanged.
GasDelivery - Projection is $827,000 worse than originally forecast. Revenues are
considerably lower due to mild weather in the last quarter of the year. The 2017-
2021 budgets for Gas Delivery, Supply, and Transportation have not been adjusted
as these forecasts are based on a multi-year average and not just on a single year’s
experience.
GasSupply and Transportation -Supply net projected results remain largely
unchanged from originally forecast and Transportation projection is $97,000 worse.
Warm weather in the last quarter of the year has resulted in decreased sales and
lower cost of goods sold.
Gas Cap and Trade -Projection is consistent with previous projection and 2017-
2021 budgets are unchanged.
Water - Projection is $136,000 better than originally forecast. Revenues are higher
due to increased water consumption in October and November. The 2017-2021
budgets are unchanged.
Sanitary - Projection is $320,000 better than originally forecast. Expenses are lower
due to decreased processing and maintenance costs. The 2017-2021 budgets have
been adjusted based on updated Regional rate projections, and funds to be received
from the Township of Woolwich for sanitary sewer capacity have been moved from
2016 to 2017 in the Capital reserve to align with the anticipated timing of payment.
FINAL - 2
Stormwater - Projection is $273,000 worse than originally forecast. Maintenance
costs are high than expected. The 2017-2021 budgets are unchanged.
Capital Budget
As highlighted to Council during the capital budget presentation, the proposed capital
budget:
1. Is balanced
2. Provides new investment in priority areas
3. Reduces the City’s debt
The proposed 10-year Capital Budget and Forecast (referred to as the Capital Budget)
remains unchanged, so a new complete project listing has not been prepared.
One capital item Council was not aware of during capital budget discussions relates to
the Kiwanis Park Pool (KPP) Renovations. Since the capital presentation in November,
the tender has closed and the projected cost for the renovations, planned for 2017, is
higher than the previously-approved capital budget. Staff have prepared an issue paper
outlining the cause for the cost increase and recommendations for funding it.
The Kiwanis Park Pool item is in addition to the follow up information Council requested
related to brownfield redevelopment, the Economic Development reserve, proceeds
from selling 48 Ontario Street North (the Legion), and the Doon Pioneer Park
Community Centre.
Information Required by the Municipal Act
Regulation 284/09 of the Municipal Act titled “Budget Matters – Expenses” requires that
before Council adopts the annual budget, it must first receive a report about “excluded
expenses” and adopt that report by resolution. This resolution is included as part of the
Final Budget Day resolution. Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) changes effective
in 2009 require the annual Consolidated Financial Statements to be prepared using full
accrual accounting. As a result, certain expenses are included in the financial
statements that are not included in the budget. For the City of Kitchener these include
amortization expense on tangible capital assets and post-employment benefit expense.
Amortization expense on tangible capital assets of $40.3M was recorded in the 2015
consolidated financial statements. This expense is meant to represent the rate at which
the City is using up its assets (based on historical cost). It can therefore be used as a
rough indication of what should be budgeted for replacement.
Post-employment benefit expense, which includes sick leave, workplace safety and
insurance benefits, and post-employment benefits in the 2015 consolidated financial
statements, was $3.4M ($38.3 - $34.9M).
If these expenses were excluded in the financial statements, the 2015 accumulated
surplus would increase by $43.7M (the combined amount of amortization expense and
FINAL - 3
post-employment benefit expense). There is no impact on future tangible capital asset
funding requirements based on the exclusion of these expenses.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic
vision through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The financial impacts on the average homeowner of services provided to citizens by the
City of Kitchener are shown in the chart below. The impacts are shown by budget (e.g.
tax, water, sanitary, storm water, gas) as well as by level of government (City, Region,
Province). It should be noted that the impacts attributed to the Region of Waterloo are
only for the additional costs of water supply and sewage processing that must be
absorbed within City of Kitchener utility rates. Impacts related to changes in the
Regional net tax levy are not included.
The breakdown by level of government shows the City of Kitchener is responsible for
$91 (or 48%) of the proposed increase, while the Region of Waterloo and Province of
Ontario are responsible for $97 (or 52%) of the proposed increase. The Regional
portion of the impact relates to increased costs for supplying water and processing
sewage. The Provincial portion of the impact relates to the costs of implementing cap
and trade legislation for natural gas.
Impact on Homeowner
Change
20162017$%
$ 1,0881,069$ 19$ 1.75%
Taxes
$ 135 $ 1 48$ 9.20%13
Storm Water
$ 420$ 4 52$ 7.60%32
Water
$ 483$ 5 36$ 10.80%53
Sanitary
$2,107$2,224$ 5.55%117
Subtotal (pre Gas)
$ 721$ 7 92$ 9.85%71
Gas
$2,828$ 3,016$ 6.65%188
Total
Impact by Level of Government
$ 3.23%91
City of Kitchener
$ 0.92%26
Region of Waterloo
$ 2.50%71
Provincial Carbon Tax
$ 6.65%188
Total
FINAL - 4
NOTE:The budget impact attributed to the Region of Waterloo does not include the
impact to taxpayers related to changes in the Regional net tax levy. It only includes the
additional costs of water supply and sewage processing that must be absorbed within
City of Kitchener utility rates.
Assumptions:
City Taxes: Current Assessed Value (CVA) of $291,000
Storm Water: property classified as Residential Single Detached Medium
3
Water & Sanitary: water consumption of 204m
3
Natural Gas: gas consumption of 2,100m
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Citizens have an opportunity to provide input about priority areas of the budget through
a number of processes. Their input comes through public consultation efforts for
comprehensive master plans (e.g. Leisure Facilities Master Plan), strategies (e.g.
Neighbourhood Strategy, Customer Service Strategy), or specific projects (e.g. Kiwanis
Park Pool). As part of those processes, staff considers the feedback received from the
public as they make their recommendations and share the feedback with Council when
those recommendations are presented for approval. The budget is the process whereby
Council affirms the various approved priorities and allocates funds to bring concepts into
reality.
For the 2017 budget process, staff have employed a suite of traditional and electronic
engagement methods in an effort to effectively inform and consult citizens. Staff have
proactively provided information about the budget process via media outreach, the city’s
website, and through Your Kitchener. Citizens have been encouraged to provide their
input by:
Writing, emailing or phoning City Hall
Attending the public input session planned for January 16, 2017
Responding to the City’s Facebook/Twitter posts about the budget
Utilizing Engage Kitchener
Contacting their ward councillor
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
The 2017 budget has been discussed in detail by Council during previous meetings set
aside exclusively to consider the budget. This includes:
FCS-16-167, 2017 Operating Budget (November 14, 2016)
FCS-15-168, 2017 Capital Budget and 10-Year Forecast (November 28, 2016)
As well, the City hosts a stand-alone public input meeting on January 16, 2017
regarding the 2017 budget.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Dan Chapman, Deputy CAO (Finance and Corporate Services)
FINAL - 5
This page has been intentionally left blank.
FINAL - 6
FINAL - 7
FINAL - 8
FINAL - 9
2017 Final Budget Day
Finance & Corporate Services
Committee
January 23, 2017
FINAL - 10
Connect to the Budget
Keep upat Facebook.com/CityofKitchener
Tweetus @CityKitcheneror#kitbudget
Emailbudget@kitchener.ca
Phone519-741-2200 x 7700
See more at www.kitchener.ca/budget2017
FINAL - 11
Presentation Agenda
•Overview
•Boards
•Enterprise Operating Budgets
•Capital Budget
•Tax Supported Operating Budget
•Resolution
FINAL - 12
Overview
FINAL - 13
Final Budget Day Process
•Minimal staff presentation
–Highlights of proposed operating
and capital budgets
–Updates on local comparators
•Follow up items for information
and decision
–Issue papers
•Outcome is an approved budget
for 2017
–Forwarded on to Council for final
approval
FINAL - 14
Key Notes of the
2017 Operating Budget
•The proposed operating budget:
1.Is significantly impacted by other
levels of government
2.Holds most tax supported City
services status quo
3.Includes growth funding that
could be reallocated in 2017
4.Is increasingly exposed to rising
costs of Workplace Safety
Insurance Board (WSIB)
5.Includes increased investments
in utility infrastructure
FINAL - 15
2017 Capital Budget
Highlights
•The proposed capital budget:
1.Is balanced
2.Provides new investment in priority
areas
3.Reduces the City’s debt
FINAL - 16
Update on Local Increases
a = approved, p = proposed
2017 Local Tax Rate Increases
Region of Waterloo*3.88% p
Cambridge3.81% p
Waterloo2.30% a
Kitchener1.75% p
*Base Budget + Issue Papers + Police
2017 Local Combined Water/Sewer Increases
Kitchener (Water, Sanitary, Stormwater)9.30%p
Waterloo (Water, Sanitary, Stormwater)5.82% a
Cambridge (Water and Sanitary only)5.08% a
FINAL - 17
Summary of Proposed
Budget Increases
Impact on Homeowner
Change
20162017$%
Taxes$1,069$1,088$ 1.75%19
Storm Water$ 135$ 1 48$ 1 39.20%
Water$ 420$ 4 52$ 3 27.60%
Sanitary$ 483$ 5 36$ 5 310.80%
Subtotal (pre Gas)$2,107$2,224$ 5.55%117
Gas$ 721$ 7 92$ 7 19.85%
Total$2,828$3,016$ 6.65%188
Impact by Level of Government
City of Kitchener$ 3.23%91
Region of Waterloo$ 0.92%26
Provincial Carbon Tax$ 2.50%71
Total$ 6.65%188
NOTE: Regional/Provincial increases only reflect costs built into City of Kitchener
rates, and do not reflect all impacts from those levels of government.
(e.g. impact of Regional net tax levy change is not included above)
FINAL - 18
Boards
FINAL - 19
Kitchener Public Library
(KPL)
•No changes to budget
•Projected actuals provided as
requested by Council
FINAL - 20
Kitchener Public Library
(KPL)
KITCHENER PUBLIC LIBRARY
BudgetProjectedBudget
201620162017
REVENUE
City of Kitchener operating grant$ 10,423,54810,423,548$$10,611,172
Provincial Grant286,755286,755286,755
Other Revenue (fines, photocopy, rentals, etc.)322,132346,000340,400
Total Revenue
$ 11,056,30311,032,435$$11,238,327
EXPENSES
Programs, Marketing & Resources1,385,6061,387,0001,401,400
Personnel, Admin & General Costs8,683,5298,654,0008,823,013
Equipment & Occupancy Costs963,3001,014,0001,013,914
Total Expenses
$ 11,055,00011,032,435$$11,238,327
Net Revenue (Expense)$ -$ 1,303$ -
FINAL - 21
Centre in the Square
(CITS)
•No changes to budget
•Follow up issue paper (BD01)about
handling of year end surplus and
transitional funding
FINAL - 22
Centre in the Square
(CITS)
CENTRE IN THE SQUARE
BudgetProjectedBudget
201620162017
REVENUE
Performances$946,300$965,330$962,700
Other Revenue (rent, sponsorships, parking, etc.)347,222392,386414,583
City of Kitchener operating grant1,750,0001,750,0001,781,500
City of Kitchener transition costs250,000250,000218,500
Total Revenue
$ 3,357,7163,293,522$ 3,377,283$
EXPENSES
Admin & General425,000414,994425,000
Marketing & Programming100,000107,451101,050
Occupancy Costs879,000823,383813,187
Personnel Costs1,831,7351,851,9971,860,360
Community Development60,000141,150177,500
Total Expenses
$ 3,338,9753,295,735$ 3,377,097$
Net Revenue (Expense)$(2,213)$ 18,741$ 186
FINAL - 23
Enterprise
Operating Budgets
FINAL - 24
Setting Enterprise Fees
EnterpriseWhenfees are set
GolfUser fees (alreadyset)
BuildingUser fees (alreadyset)
ParkingUser fees (alreadyset)
GasOutside budget process
WaterFinal Budget Day
Sanitary SewerFinal Budget Day
Storm SewerFinal Budget Day
FINAL - 25
2017 Budgets
and 2016 Actuals
•Each enterprise is preceded by
a summary of changes to the
2017 budget and 2016 projected
actuals
–Most budgets remain unchanged
from original presentation
–Changes to 2016 projected
actuals for most enterprises
FINAL - 26
Golf
Summary of Changes
•Budget remains unchanged from
original presentation
•Projection is consistent with
original presentation
FINAL - 27
Golf Enterprise
(000's)
BudgetProjectionBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudget
2016201620172018201920202021
OPERATIONS
Revenue2,683 2 ,862 3,0302,990 3,046 3,054 3 ,060
Expenses2,192 2 ,368 2,4982,489 2,507 2,515 2 ,528
492 494 501 532 539 539 532
OTHER EXPENSES
Transfer - Golf Cart Repl. Reserve 65 65 75 75 75 75 95
Debt Charges 266 266 265 266 266 266 217
Transfer to Capital 74 74 74 105 112 112 115
405 405 414 446 453 453 427
87 89 87 87 87 87 105
Net Profit (Loss) before Dividend
Dividend Transfer to City 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
12 14 12 12 12 12 30
Net Revenue (Expense)
STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND
Opening Balance (919) ( 919) ( 918) (920)(918) ( 920) ( 922)
Add: Trsf from Tax Stabilization Reserve - - - - - - -
Add: Excess of revenue over expense 12 14 12 12 12 12 30
Less: Interest Expense (13) (13) (13) (13) (13) (13) (13)
(920) ( 918) ( 918) (920)(920) ( 922) ( 904)
Closing Balance
Minimum Benchmark (10% of total revenue) 268 286 299 303 305 305 306
Maximum Benchmark (15% of total revenue) 403 429 449 454 457 458 459
FINAL - 28
Building
Summary of Changes
•Budget remains unchanged from
original presentation
•Projection is $709,000 better
than original presentation
–Increased permit activity in last
quarter of year as customers try to
beat the Regional development
charge increase taking effect on
st
January 12017.
–Stronger than expected results in
2016 may lead to weaker results
in 2017
FINAL - 29
Building Enterprise
FINAL - 30
Parking
Summary of Changes
•Budget remains unchanged from
original presentation
•Projection is $206,000 better than
original presentation
–Expenses are lower than forecast
largely due to savings in
discretionary expenses
–Revenues are higher than forecast
due to short-term monthly permit
needs (i.e. they expire in 2017) for
commercial and multi-residential
buildings while their regular parking
facilities are under construction
FINAL - 31
Parking Enterprise
FINAL - 32
Gas Delivery
Summary of Changes
•Budget remains unchanged from
original presentation
•Projection is $827,000 worse
than original presentation
–Warm weather in the last quarter
of the year has resulted in
decreased sales
–Construction and maintenance
cost were higher than anticipated
FINAL - 33
Gas Utility
Delivery
(000's)BudgetProjectionBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudget
2016201620172018201920202021
GasDelivery
Revenues37,37735,26336,93136,93536,93937,02037,247
Expenses14,77215,02314,53414,67114,80914,94815,088
GrossProfit22,60520,24022,39722,26422,13022,07222,159
GrossProfit%
ЏЉ͵ЍБіЎА͵ЍЉіЏЉ͵ЏЎіЏЉ͵ЋБіЎВ͵ВЊіЎВ͵ЏЋіЎВ͵ЍВі
OtherPrograms
Revenues9,8409,73610,27110,91411,07911,27411,494
Expenses7,4136,6577,2177,6477,7407,8728,007
GrossProfit2,4273,0793,0543,2673,3393,4023,487
GrossProfit%ЋЍ͵ЏЏіЌЊ͵ЏЋіЋВ͵АЌіЋВ͵ВЌіЌЉ͵ЊЍіЌЉ͵ЊБіЌЉ͵ЌЍі
TransfertoGasCapital10,62010,6207,66410,77610,26510,53410,753
NetProfit(Loss)beforeCityDividend 14,41212,69917,78714,75515,20414,94014,893
DividendTransfertoCity13,79613,79614,07214,35314,64014,93315,232
NetRevenue(Expense)616(1,097)3,7154025647(339)
StabilizationReserveFund
OpeningBalance7777(1,019)2,6823,1233,7323,793
NetRevenue(Expense)616(1,097)3,7154025647(339)
InterestRevenue(Expense)411(15)39455455
Transferfrom(to)CapitalReserveFund00000
Balanceendofyear734(1,019)2,6823,1233,7323,7933,509
MinimumBenchmark(10%deliveryrevenue 3,7383,5263,6933,6943,6943,7023,725
MaximumBenchmark(15%deliveryrevenue 5,6075,2895,5405,5405,5415,5535,587
CapitalReserveFund
Balancebeginningofyear3,9893,9894,1701,3281,3511,3751,399
TransferfromStabilizationReserveFund0000000
CapitalCloseOuts02,52900000
InterestExpense56447323242424
TransfertoCapital(2,392)(2,392)(2,915)0000
BalanceEndofYear1,6534,1701,3281,3511,3751,3991,423
FINAL - 34
Gas Supply
Summary of Changes
•Budget remains unchanged from
original presentation
•Net projected results remain
largely unchanged since original
presentation
–Warm weather in the last quarter
of the year has resulted in
matching decreases in sales and
cost of goods sold
FINAL - 35
Gas Transportation
Summary of Changes
•Budget remains unchanged from
original presentation
•Projection is $97,000 worse
than original presentation
–Warm weather in the last quarter
of the year has resulted in
decreased sales and cost of
goods sold
FINAL - 36
Gas Utility
Supply & Transportation
(000's)BudgetProjectionBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudget
2016201620172018201920202021
GasSupply
Revenues23,79120,17222,24227,09727,09726,27424,670
Expenses29,45720,99827,78327,06526,23026,23926,247
GrossProfit(5,667)(826)(5,541)3286735(1,578)
GrossProfit%23.82%4.09%24.91%0.12%3.20%0.13%6.40%
GasUtility(Supply)Stabilization
OpeningBalance8,9478,9478,2532,8322,9053,8143,904
Addexcessofrev.overexp.(5,667)(826)(5,541)3286735(1,578)
Interest9313212041425557
Balanceendofyear3,3738,2522,8332,9053,8153,9042,383
MinimumBenchmark(10%oftotalrevenue)2,3792,0172,2242,7102,7102,6272,467
3,5693,0263,3364,0654,0653,9413,700
MaximumBenchmark(15%oftotalrevenue
GasRate(JanuaryOctober)10.510.59.512.512.512.511.0
GasRate(NovemberDecember)13.010.512.512.512.511.012.5
GasTransportation
Revenues8,8957,69110,4617,0236,9997,0047,009
Expenses8,6958,1799,1857,0276,9487,0177,088
GrossProfit200(488)1,276(4)51(13)(79)
GrossProfit%2.25%6.35%12.20%0.06%0.73%0.19%1.13%
GasUtility(Transporation)Stabilization
Balancebeginningofyear(50)(50)(538)730737798796
Addexcessofrev.overexp.200(488)1,276(4)51(13)(79)
interest18(1)(8)11111212
Balanceendofyear168(540)730737798797729
MinimumBenchmark(10%oftotalrevenue)8907691,046702700700701
1,3041,2271,3781,0541,0421,0531,063
MaximumBenchmark(15%oftotalrevenue
GasRate(JanuaryOctober)4.004.005.003.003.003.003.00
GasRate(NovemberDecember)4.004.003.003.003.003.003.00
FINAL - 37
Gas Cap and Trade
Summary of Changes
•Budget remains unchanged from
original presentation
•No projected results in 2016 as
legislation does not come into
force until 2017
FINAL - 38
Gas Works Utility
Cap and Trade
(000's)BudgetProjectionBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudget
2016201620172018201920202021
Carbon
Revenues9,72210,36511,05411,79112,565
Expenses:
CarbonCredits8,5009,50010,50012,31111,400
DeferredCredits69235543(1,031)648
OtherExpenses490490490490495
TransfertoCapital4020212122
TotalExpenses:9,72210,36511,05411,79112,565
(Surplus)/Deficit
MinimumBenchmark(10%oftotalrevenue)9721,0361,1051,1791,256
MaximumBenchmark(15%oftotalrevenue)1,4581,5551,6581,7691,885
Cap&TradeRate(JanuarytoDecember)3.56473.79334.04604.31624.6073
GasUtility(Carbon)Stabilization
Balancebeginningofyear
Addexcessofrev.overexp.
interest
Balanceendofyear
MinimumBenchmark(10%oftotalrevenue)9721036110511791256
MaximumBenchmark(15%oftotalrevenue)14581555165817691885
CapitalReserveFund(Carbon)
OpeningBalance
TransferfromStabilizationReserveFund
CapitalCloseOuts
Interest
AnticipatedCapitalRequirements
ClosingBalance
MinimumBenchmark(50%avgbalancein10yrforecast)
MaximumBenchmark(150%avgbalancein10yrforecast)
FINAL - 39
Water
Summary of Changes
•Budget remains unchanged from
original presentation
•Projection is $136,000 better
than original presentation
–Small increase to both water
revenue and cost of water supply
–Small decrease to operating costs
•Follow up issue paper (BD02)
about Accelerated Infrastructure
Replacement Program
FINAL - 40
Water Utility
(000's)BudgetProjBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudget
2016201620172018201920202021
REVENUEANDEXPENSES
SaleofWater40,60239,90142,04344,77247,67451,29755,697
WaterSupply22,29521,72521,94122,31322,72123,38024,251
GrossProfit18,30718,17620,10222,45924,95327,91731,446
GROSSPROFIT%45.1%45.6%47.8%50.2%52.3%54.4%56.5%
MISCELLANEOUSREVENUE
OtherRevenue323364349354359364369
EXPENSES
Operating8,1997,8338,7889,81310,88812,06313,330
Transfertocapital(AcceleratedInfrastructureProgram)7,6967,6968,6969,82711,10412,54814,179
Transfertocapital(Other)2,3142,3145232,9132,0982,8462,044
18,20917,84318,00722,55324,09027,45729,553
NetRevenue(Expense)4216972,4442601,2228242,262
STABILIZATIONRESERVEFUND
OpeningBalance(2,571)(2,571)(1,912)5057732,0062,858
NetRevenue(Expense)4216972,4442601,2228242,262
Interestrevenue(expense)(34)(37)(28)7112941
Transferfromcapitalreserve
ClosingBalance(2,184)(1,912)5057732,0062,8585,162
###MinimumBenchmark(10%oftotalrevenue)4,0603,9904,2044,4774,7675,1305,570
###MaximumBenchmark(15%oftotalrevenue)6,0905,9856,3066,7167,1517,6958,355
CAPITALRESERVEFUND
OpeningBalance9819812,42980828385
CapitalCloseOuts2,241
Interestrevenue(expense)28431111
TransfertoCapital(801)(801)(2,391)
ClosingBalance1822,4298082838586
MinimumBenchmark(50%avgbalancein10yrforecast)16,3994,5008,2008,2008,2008,2008,200
MaximumBenchmark(150%avgbalancein10yrforecast)13,50013,50024,59924,59924,59924,59924,599
%IncreaseinWaterRetailRate7.60%7.60%7.60%7.60%7.60%7.60%
%IncreaseinRegionWholesaleRate2.90%1.90%2.90%2.90%2.90%2.90%
%IncreaseinConsumption1.50%3.76%1.03%1.04%0.00%0.91%
FINAL - 41
Sanitary
Summary of Changes
•Budget has been updated
–Cost of Sewage Processing has been
adjusted from 2018 to 2021 based on
updated Regional rate projections
–Funds to be received from the Township
of Woolwich for additional pumping
station capacity has been moved to
2017 in the capital reserve
•Projection is $320,000 better
than original presentation
–Sewage processing costs and
maintenance costs are lower than
expected
FINAL - 42
Sanitary Utility
(000's)BudgetProjectedBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudget
2016201620172018201920202021
REVENUEANDEXPENSES
SewerSurcharge45,99945,02949,04253,79258,98065,35173,069
CostofSewageProcessing25,23125,01427,18629,27431,06432,37133,862
GrossProfit20,76820,01521,85624,51827,91632,98039,207
GROSSPROFIT%45%44%45%46%47%50%54%
MISCELLANEOUSREVENUE
OtherRevenue7538278489059881,0911,215
EXPENSES
Administration1,7001,7071,7721,8301,8851,9361,979
Maintenance4,1263,6605,1556,2777,5268,92610,507
SewageRebates458539603668740820909
Transfertocapital(AcceleratedInfrastructureProgram)11,41911,41912,90414,58116,47718,61921,039
Transfertocapital(Other)3,4083,4081,8412,3282,5923,3693,553
21,11120,73322,27525,68429,22033,67037,987
NetRevenue(Expense)410109429(261)(316)4012,435
STABILIZATIONRESERVEFUND
OpeningBalance(20)(20)89519266(46)354
Add:Excessofrevenueoverexpenses410109429(261)(316)40
12,435
Add:Interestrevenue(expense)(7)184(1)5
ClosingBalance38389519266(46)3542,794
MinimumBenchmark(10%oftotalrevenue)4,6004,5034,9045,3795,8986,5357,307
MaximumBenchmark(15%oftotalrevenue)6,9006,7547,3568,0698,8479,80310,960
CAPITALRESERVEFUND
OpeningBalance1,4141,414559604313233
Add:Capitalcloseouts1,6511,175
Less:Transfertocapital(2,501)(2,501)(1,130)(574)
Add:Interestrevenue(expense)(22)(5)1111
ClosingBalance(1,109)55960431323334
MinimumBenchmark(50%avgbalancein10yrforecast)12,06712,06713,34213,34213,34213,34213,342
MaximumBenchmark(150%avgbalancein10yrforecast)36,20036,20040,02540,02540,02540,02540,025
%IncreaseinRetailSewerRate10.80%10.80%10.80%10.80%10.80%10.80%
%IncreaseinRegionWholesaleRate6.90%7.90%7.90%5.90%3.90%3.90%
%IncreaseinConsumption1.50%3.77%1.02%1.04%0.00%0.91%
FINAL - 43
Stormwater
Summary of Changes
•Budget remains unchanged from
original presentation
•Projection is $273,000 worse
than original presentation
–Maintenance costs are higher than
expected due to increase in
emergency repairs
FINAL - 44
Stormwater Utility
(000's)BudgetProjectedBudgetBudgetBudgetBudgetBudget
2016201620172018201920202021
REVENUE
StormwaterCharge14,47114,48616,00017,53419,21421,05423,075
OtherRevenue557528594638687740798
15,02815,01416,59418,17219,90121,79423,873
EXPENSES
Administration1,7331,7261,7721,8301,8831,9432,002
StormSewerMaintenance2,4242,9432,7613,1803,6424,1564,728
StormWaterCreditProgram414413462505551602657
GrantstoCharities/PlacesofWorship377373406443484529577
Transfertocapital(AcceleratedInfrastructureProgram)5,5275,5276,3496,9268,0178,74310,261
Transfertocapital(Other)4,3474,3473,8375,0504,7255,6965,625
14,82215,32915,58717,93419,30221,66823,850
NetRevenue(Expense)206(315)1,00723859912622
STABILIZATIONRESERVEFUND
OpeningBalance(932)(932)(1,261)(272)(37)560694
Add:Excess(Deficiency)ofrevenueoverexpenses206(315)1,00723859912622
Add:Interestrevenue(expense)(15)(14)(18)(4)(1)810
ClosingBalance(741)(1,261)(272)(37)560694726
MinimumBenchmark(10%oftotalrevenue)1,4471,4491,6001,7531,9212,1052,308
MaximumBenchmark(15%oftotalrevenue)2,1712,1732,4002,6302,8823,1583,461
CAPITALRESERVEFUND
OpeningBalance1,6041,6041,468
Add:Capitalcloseouts1,159
Less:Transfertocapital(1,310)(1,310)(1,468)
Add:Interestrevenue(expense)615
ClosingBalance3001,468
MinimumBenchmark(50%avgbalancein10yrforecast)7,4587,4588,5948,5948,5948,5948,594
MaximumBenchmark(150%avgbalancein10yrforecast)22,37522,37525,78125,78125,78125,78125,781
%IncreaseinRetailStormwaterRate9.20%9.20%9.20%9.20%9.20%9.20%
%GrowthResidential1.00%0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50%
%GrowthNonResidential0.50%0.25%0.25%0.25%0.25%0.25%
FINAL - 45
Capital Budget
FINAL - 46
Capital Budget Changes
•Information to be provided at a later
date through issue paper BD03
FINAL - 47
Capital Budget Update
•Kiwanis Park Pool Renovations
(BD04)
–The tendered cost for the renovations
is over the approved capital budget
–Recommendation:
•That $190,000 be transferred from the Capital
Contingency account to the 2017 Kiwanis Park
Pool capital account; and further
•That the 2017 Kiwanis Park Pool capital
budget be increased by $200,000 of
sponsorship funding related to the Kiwanis
Park splash pad
FINAL - 48
Capital Issue Papers
IP#Title
Funding Shortfall for DoonPioneer Park Expansion &
BD05
Splash Pad
BD06Brownfield Remediation Program
Impact of Economic Development Reserve Outside
BD07
of Downtown
BD08Proceeds of Sale from 48 Ontario Street North
FINAL - 49
Tax Supported
Operating Budget
FINAL - 50
Tax Supported Operating
Budget Summary
•No changes made to proposed tax
supported operating budget
•Assessment growth was 1.65%
versus projection of 1.25%
–$439,000 of additional revenue
FINAL - 51
Operating
Issue Papers
IP#Title
BD09Arts Sustainability Funding
BD10Enhancing Integrity Commissioner Services Follow Up
Increasing Exposure to Workplace Safety Insurance
BD11
Board (WSIB) Costs Follow Up
BD12Mileage & Per Diem Rates
BD132017 Budget Public Input
FINAL - 52
Resolutions
FINAL - 53
Resolutions
•Draft resolutions provided to
Council as a handout
–Numbers will change based on
decisions made today
FINAL - 54
FinalBudgetDayIssuePaper(IP)Index
IP#Description
BD01SharingCITSYearendSurplusandTransitionalFunding
BD02AcceleratedInfrastructureReplacementProgram(AIRP)FollowUp
BD03CapitalBudgetChanges(tobecirculatedatalaterdate)
BD04KiwanisParkPool(KPP)Renovation
BD05FundingShortfallforDoonPioneerParkExpansion&SplashPad
BD06BrownfieldRemediationProgram
BD07ImpactofEconomicDevelopmentReserveOutsideofDowntown
BD08ProceedsofSalefrom48OntarioStreetNorth
BD09ArtsSustainabilityFunding
BD10EnhancingIntegrityCommissionerServicesFollowUp
BD11IncreasingExposuretoWorkplaceSafetyInsuranceBoard(WSIB)CostsFollowUp
BD12MileageandPerDiemRates
BD132017BudgetPublicInput
FINAL - 55
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD01 – Sharing CITS Year-end Surplus and Transitional Funding
FUND:Operating
DEPARTMENT: Centre in the Square
PREPARER: Rob Sonoda, General Manager, CITS
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
The City of Kitchener has historically provided a $1,400,000 operating grant to the Centre In The
Square (CITS) and shared operating losses and profits with CITS on a 50/50 basis. Following a
series of reviews in 2015, an increase to the base subsidy to CITS of $1,750,000 was approved,
plus transitional funding of $250,000 to support the adoption of a new mandate.
As part of the 2016 Final Budget Day deliberations (January 18, 2016), Council decided that any
surplus accumulated by CITS up to the transitional funding amount ($250,000) would be
returned to the City. Any surplus over and above that amount would be shared on a 50/50 basis
in keeping with the historic arrangement that predated the transitional funding.
The rationale provided in the 2016 Issue Paper (BD01 - CITS Transitional Costs) for this new
funding arrangement, was that returning all of the unused funds would ensure that CITS has
access to all of the funding available, but also ensure the City is only paying for actual
transitional costs. Additionally, it recognized the extraordinary nature of this funding from an
already depleted Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund.
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
CITS is requesting the City consider an alternate approach to what was decided in January 2016,
which is that ALL year end surpluses be shared 50/50. This would include both year-end
operating results as well as transitional funding. It should be noted that this proposal includes
this change be applied to both FY2016 and FY2017.
Sharing the year-end surplus with the City would allow CITS to build up its depleted reserves.
The ability to boost reserves will allow CITS to realize some momentum in gaining financial
ground on the ever growing performance based expenditure deficit, recognize a performance
development fund and a community access fund, and support the demands from the
community for local based programming and supporting wider access to CITS for this region.
In reviewing the discussion and decision from the January 18, 2016 meeting, it would appear
that switching the surplus splitting to 50/50 would be contrary to what was previously decided;
accordingly, a motion to reconsider would need to be approved prior to any consideration
being given to applying CITS’ proposal toFY2016.
Council could consider the proposed alternative approach forFY2017 without the need to
reconsider any previous motion, as the 2016decision was only applicable to the funds allocated
in that year.
FINAL - 56
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
CITS currently expects to have a surplus of approximately $20,000at the end of 2016.
Reverting to the historic practice of sharing all year-end surpluses instead of returning any
surplus up to the transitional funding amount, would result in a reduction to the Tax
Stabilization Reserve Fund of approximately $10,000 for FY2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
The following motion could be put forward if a member of Council wished to pursue
reconsideration:
“That the January 18, 2016 decision regarding the allocation of any surplus accumulated
by CITS up to and above the transitional funding of $250,000, be reconsidered.”
Must be supported by at least 2/3 of the members present to be approved.
The following motion could then be put forward if the motion to reconsider IS approved:
“That the funding arrangement of splitting any surplus accumulated by CITS 50/50
between CITS and the City be applied to FY2016 and FY2017.”
The following motion could be put forward if the motion to reconsider is NOTapproved:
“That the funding arrangement of splitting any surplus accumulated by CITS 50/50
between CITS and the City be applied to FY2017.”
FINAL - 57
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD02 – Accelerated Infrastructure Replacement Program (AIRP) Follow Up
FUND:Capital
DEPARTMENT: Infrastructure Services Department –Engineering & Utilities Divisions
PREPARER: Hans N. Gross, P. Eng., Director Engineering Services
Ryan Hagey, Director Financial Planning
BUDGET IMPACT: For Discussion
BACKGROUND:
During the Operating Budget meeting on November 14, 2016, Council requested follow-up
information about the Accelerated Infrastructure Replacement Program (AIRP) and utility rates.
This included providing information on:
1)AIRP work completed compared to the target and the AIRP work planned to be
completed based on the proposed rate increases;
2)Projected water, sanitary, and stormwater costs to the average homeowner for the
next 10 years and comparison to others;
3)The impact a sale of assets would have on utility rates;
4)The impact issuing debt would have on utility rates; and,
5)Other potential funding sources.
By 2016 the City of Kitchener will have completed approximately 58 kilometres (kms) of the 260
km AIRP infrastructure back log. The cost to complete the remaining (202 km) in 2016 dollars is
approximately $1B. This infrastructure is currently or will be at or beyond its expected lifecycle
and/or exceeds condition thresholds within the timeframe of the program. If the AIRP funding
was frozen at 2016 investment levels, the AIRP accomplishment target would not be
accomplished until 2095 instead of 2032. As well, the oldest assets intended to be addressed
by the program (80 years old) would be on a 143 year lifecycle. Infrastructure beyond its useful
life has a higher risk of failure, can be more costly to fix, and incurs higher annual maintenance
costs.
Infrastructure components included in this program (i.e. water, sanitary, stormwater, and
roadway) are considered critical to the safety and quality of life of Kitchener citizens. In
addition to the legislated obligations related to clean drinking water; essential services such as
sustained hydrant flow for fire emergencies, expected water quality, consistent flow of sewage
to treatment facilities and mitigation of flooding risk are all essential services the City delivers.
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
1) AIRP Work Compared to Target (Actual and Projected)
The Accelerated Infrastructure Replacement Program (AIRP) was implemented in 2002 and was
planned to run until 2032. The program was intended to accelerate the replacement ofall
infrastructure within the City’s rights-of-way that is beyond its serviceable life (estimated at 80
years). During the 30 year program, it was planned to replace 8.66 km of infrastructure annually
with a total program replacement of 260 km.
The graph on the following page shows the cumulative actual and projected AIRP work
accomplishments versus the target. Actual work to date has been well below the original
cumulative completion target. The State of the Infrastructure (SOTI) presentation laid out a
FINAL - 58
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
financial road map to get the AIRP program back on track towards the original 30 year
timeframe and ensures no pipe in the City is more than 80 years old. The lines and bars on the
graph indicate the following:
The straight line starting at the bottom left and ending at the upper right of the graph
indicates the original cumulative accomplishment target of 8.66 km per year for a total
of 260 km.
The red bars from 2004 to 2016 show the actual cumulative accomplishment. The
difference between the red bars and the targetline indicates the kilometers of
infrastructure that was not replaced during that time period.
The green curved line starting in 2017 indicates the revised cumulative target for
infrastructure replacement in order to achieve the original end target of the program by
2032. The recommended AIRP funding presented during the SOTI in August 2015
outlined the annual funding increases required to complete theprojected work of the
original Program by 2032.
The blue bars from 2017 to 2025 represent the projected infrastructure replacement
within the proposed capital budget.
As can be seen in the graph, the actual AIRP accomplishments have been well below the
targeted accomplishment target. The proposed 2017 budget (including incremental Federal
funding) puts the City back on track to achieve the goals of AIRP within the original timeframe,
FINAL - 59
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
and will help the City avoid increasing maintenance costs and service disruptions to Kitchener
residents.
2) Projected Utility Costs for the Average Homeowner & Comparison to Others
The table below shows the projected costs of water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater for the 10-
year period of 2016 to 2025 based on the proposed combined rate increase 9.3% as noted in
the SOTI presentation. The average annual homeowner cost of these utilities is projected to
increase from $1,038 in 2016 to $2,329 in 2025.
Projected Utility Costs for Average Homeowner
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
2016 RateProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjected
Water$ 420$ 452 $ 486 $ 523 $ 563 $ 606 $ 652 $ 702 $ 755 $ 812
Sanitary$ 483$ 536 $ 594 $ 658 $ 729 $ 808 $ 895 $ 992 $ 1,099$ 1,218
Storm$ 135$ 148 $ 162 $ 177 $ 193 $ 211 $ 230 $ 251 $ 274 $ 299
$ 1,038 $ 1,136$ 1,242$ 1,358$ 1,485$ 1,625$ 1,777$ 1,945$ 2,128$ 2,329
Significant rate increases are not limited to Kitchener. In their recent budget documents, both
Waterloo and Cambridge have projected water/sewer rate increases well above the rate of
inflation for a number of years. Waterloo has proposed rate increases between 4.5% - 5.5% for
each of the next five years, while Cambridge has projected rate increases of 5.5% in 2018 and
6.2% in 2019.
As requested by Council, staff have researched the water prices in European nations and
compared them to Kitchener. The information shows that Kitchener’s water/sewer prices in
2014 were near the midpoint of European nations.
3
2014 Price of Water & Sanitary Sewer/m (in $CAD)
Kitchener versus European Nations
Source: Global Water Intelligence
FINAL - 60
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
For additional context, a comparative graph of water & sewer costs for Ontario’s largest
municipalities is shown below. Kitchener’s costs ($899) are above the average ($818), but are
within the range of Regional comparators Waterloo ($810), and Cambridge ($1,000). It should
be noted that a majority of the below average municipalities are high-growth GTA
municipalities with younger infrastructure.
3
)
2015 Cost of Water & Sanitary Sewer(200 m
Large Ontario Municipalities(population >100,000)
$1,200.00
$1,000.00
$800.00
$600.00
$400.00
$200.00
$0.00
Barrie
Milton
Guelph
Whitby
Ottawa
London
Oakville
Oshawa
Toronto
Average
Windsor
Kingston
Vaughan
Hamilton
Waterloo
Kitchener
Markham
Brampton
Burlington
Cambridge
Mississauga
Thunder Bay
St. Catharines
Richmond Hill
Chatham-Kent
Greater Sudbury
Source: BMA Management Consulting Inc. 2016 Municipal Study
3) Impact of Sale of Assets Instead of Utility Rate Increases
Selling City assets to fund AIRP construction would reduce rate increases. The impact on rates
is dependent on the amount of funds generated through the asset sale. In the proposed 2017
budget, the funding increase for AIRP is $3.3M and results in a combined utility rate increase of
3.4%. So if an asset sale were able to generate $3.3M, the combined utility increase could be
reduced from 9.3% to 5.9%for 2017 only. To stay on track with AIRP, the combined utility rate
increase for 2018 would need to be nearly 20% and would revert back to 9.3% for 2019 and
beyond unless the proceeds of anasset sale were large enough to fund AIRP constructioncosts
beyond 2017.
To avoid rate shock, any proceeds from an asset sale should be used to fund AIRP over the long
term. This will provide some minor rate relief in the first year, before the rate returning to 9.3%
for years 2-10. The chart below shows the utility rate increasesfor three hypothetical asset
sales of $1M, $3M, and $5M. The modest reductions to the rate increases in year 1 would
ensure there is less rate shock to customers in year 2.
FINAL - 61
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
Total Utility Rate Utility Rate
Annual Benefit
Proceeds Increase Increase
(over 10 years)
of Asset Sale (year 1) (years 2-10)
$1,000,000 9.3%
$100,000 9.3%
$3,000,000 9.3%
$300,000 9.1%
$5,000,000 9.3%
$500,000 8.8%
Staff do not recommend selling assets to fund increased investment in AIRP unless the asset
is surplus, and selling is the best incremental cash flow scenario for the City. Further, if an
asset is sold, any proceeds from asset sales should be brought in over multiple years to avoid
rate shock.
4) Impact of Debt Issue Instead of Utility Rate Increases
Municipalities can issue debt to finance the creation/revitalization of capital assets, and
therefore debt could be used to fund AIRP construction. Kitchener currently has a debt load
that is above/at the high end of target levels as defined by credit rating agencies or the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs.
While using debt to fund utility infrastructure replacement is possible, it is not advisable. The
Municipal Finance Officers Association (MFOA) suggests the best use of debt is to fund atypical
or unexpected capital expenditures, and should not be used to carry out regular asset
management related activities such as repairs and maintenance.
The graph below shows the City’s total debt load if all increases to AIRP were funded through
issuing debt instead of utility rates. By 2026, the City’s debt load would be nearly $230M, with
just over $200M of the debt relating to utilities, and just under $30M relating to all other City
functions. A debt load of $230M is approximately double the previous debt peak of $112M in
2013.
Total Debt Outstanding if AIRP Increase Was Funded Through Debt
FINAL - 62
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
Likewise, issuing debt to fund increased investment in AIRP would significantly impact the City’s
debt to household ratio. Kitchener is currently within the moderate range ($400-$1,000) as
defined by the Province, but would quickly move to be in the high range and would be at a
value of $2,123 by 2026, which is nearly double the previous peak of $1,262 from 2013.
Debt Per Household if AIRP Increase Was Funded Through Debt
High Range
Moderate Range
Low Range
Issuing debt would provide some temporary relief in utility rate increases, but as the debt is
issued, rates would need to increase to pay for the debt (principal and interest). Further, debt
payments would continue after the costs of building the infrastructure had actually been
incurred, so rates would need to remain at these increased levels for a longer period of time
than if utility rates were increased to pay for the infrastructure when it is installed.
Projected Utility Costs for Average Homeowner if AIRP Increase Was Funded Through Debt
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
2016 RateProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjected
Water 420 439 463 488 517 548 584 622 662 708
Sanitary 483 518 559 604 658 724 796 876 964 1,060
Storm 135 141 147 154 163 174 185 198 215 233
1,038 1,099 1,169 1,246 1,338 1,446 1,565 1,696 1,841 2,001
Total Increase5.9%6.4%6.6%7.4%8.1%8.2%8.4%8.5%8.7%
Using debt capacity to fund utility infrastructure replacement means the City would not have
capacity to issue debt for service expansions/priority projects.
Since issuing debt for infrastructure replacement is not advised by industry experts, issuing such
a substantial amount of debt would preclude the City from using debt for other priorities, and
rate increases would still be substantial for an extended period of time, staff do not
recommend using debt to fund increased investment in AIRP.
FINAL - 63
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
5) Other potential funding sources
In 2017 there are no other potential funding sources identified to either offset the
recommended increase or to add incremental infrastructure projects. It is staff’s belief that in
future years (and as early as 2018), there will likely be funding from other levels of government
(e.g. Clean Water Wastewater Fund Phase 2) that could reduce the need for the projected
utility rate increases. As more information is made known about opportunities, staff will report
to Council and will amend the budget projections on an annual basis as these opportunities
allow.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Financial implications are outlined throughout the issue paper.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the proposed 2017 utility rate increases for Water (7.6%), Sanitary (10.8%), and
Stormwater (9.2%) be approved, resulting in a combined increase of 9.3%.
And further that staffbe directed toreport back to Council in the first half of 2017 with options
to reduce utility rate increases in 2018 and beyond.
FINAL - 64
CITYOFKITCHENER
2017BUDGETISSUEPAPER
ISSUE:BD03ΑCapitalBudgetChanges
FUND:Capital
DEPARTMENT:
PREPARER:
BUDGETIMPACT:
BACKGROUND:
Informationwillbecirculatedatalaterdate.
FINAL - 65
CITYOFKITCHENER
2017BUDGETISSUEPAPER
Thispagehasbeenintentionallyleftblank.
FINAL - 66
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD04 – Kiwanis Park Pool (KPP) Renovation
FUND:Capital
DEPARTMENT: Community Services – Community Programs & Services
PREPARER: Mark Hildebrand, Director Community Programs & Services
BUDGET IMPACT: $200,000 increase (sponsorship), reallocation of $192,000
BACKGROUND:
The Kiwanis Park Pool (KPP) was constructed in 1967 and requires renovations to meet health
code requirements. These renovations are planned for 2017, and Council has already approved
$1M for this in 2016, with another $2.5M budgeted for 2017. Further, another $178,000 is
planned from the existing balance in the Corporate Accessibility Fund to improve accessibility
around the pool site. This brings the total planned pool renovation budget to $3,678,000.
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
Tenders for replacing the KPP closed in mid-December, with the lowest price being above the
approved budget by approximately $390,000. This amount only includes the pool replacement
and does not include the addition of a splashpad. The following unplanned expenses are the
main causes for the tender price exceeding budget:
# Cause Amount
1Carbon tax on concrete – As of January 1, 2017, the Province’s new carbon
$40,000
tax will be applied to concrete.
2Electrical servicing – The water pumping and treatment infrastructure
needed to meet health code legislation requires improved electrical
$130,000
servicing to the pool site. This service is required to be run from the nearby
neighbourhood into the park.
3Infiltration gallery –In the original cost estimate,it was assumed the low
lying existing wetland in the park would accommodate the pool operation
discharge. Once the geo-technical analysis of the site was completed, it was
$220,000
determined that an added infiltration gallery was needed to accommodate
the increased discharge of water, which is a consequence of increased
filtration and turnover rates required by legislation.
Staff has reviewed the tender submissions and, besides the removal of the optional splash-pad,
is confident there are other discretionary items that can be negotiated with the successful
bidder. The total value of these negotiable items is approximately $200,000, meaning the
revised KPP renovation costs are $190,000 over budget.
Splash Pad Features
During the City’s 2015 public engagement process for the Kiwanis Park pool renovation project,
85% of the 2,423 people who provided input supported the inclusion of splash pad features
with the new pool. Ideally, installation of these splash pad features would coincide with the
overall pool renovation as it would benefit from economies of scale (construction staff and
equipment are already onsite), minimize the disruption to park patrons, and ensure these new
water features open alongside the larger renovation project. The option of including splash pad
features in the scope of this project was included in the tender. The bid price for those
FINAL - 67
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
additional features is approximately $200,000, which is above the overall project budget
discussed above.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are two funding issues for Council to consider as outlined above; the cost of renovating
the KPP, and the cost of installing a new splash pad feature.
1) Renovating the KPP - $190,000
After negotiating some reductions in scope with the vendor, staff believesthe renovation
project budget will still need to be increased by approximately $190,000. Staff recommends
funding this shortfall by transferring $190,000 from the Capital Contingency account to the
Kiwanis Park Pool capital account. The Capital Contingency account has an existing balance of
$225,000 and another $182,000 budgeted for 2017. This account is not currently earmarked
for any other use, and would ensure the KPP renovation can continue proceeding as planned.
2) Building a New Splash Pad - $200,000
Staff believes there may be an opportunity to generate some revenue to help fund the
installation of splash pad features through the sale of the naming rights for the pool. As a
result, staff recommends including these features in the scope of this project and attempt to
work to secure a naming rights partner in 2017. Council should be aware of the risk that a
sponsorship may not materialize to cover the full costs of these features, in which case any
shortfall in funding would have to be covered through other sources (e.g. reprioritization of
other capital expenditures, unused contingency funding from the project, future unrelated
sponsorship revenues, future capital closeouts). Another potential funding source to fund
these features (if a sponsorship does not fully materialize) is the addition of a capital surcharge
of $1 on all visits to the pool for the 2018 and 2019 season.
RECOMMENDATION:
That $190,000 be transferred from the Capital Contingency account to the 2017 Kiwanis Park
Pool capital account; and further
That the 2017 Kiwanis Park Pool capital budget be increased by $200,000 of sponsorship
funding related to the Kiwanis Park splash pad.
FINAL - 68
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD05 – Funding Shortfall for Doon Pioneer Park Expansion & Splash Pad
FUND:Operating& Capital
DEPARTMENT: Community Services Department
PREPARER: Mark Hildebrand, Director Community Programs and Services
Denise McGoldrick, Director Operations – Environmental Services
BUDGET IMPACT: For discussion
BACKGROUND:
During City Council’s operating budget discussions on November 14, 2016, an issue paper was
requested to consider transferring $109,000 from the Operating budget, which was previously
planned to cover operating costs related to the expansion of the Doon Pioneer Park Community
Centre (DPCC), to fund a capital shortfall in the DPPCC expansion project.Staff have
recommended that the savings from the DPPCC growth allocation be allocated in 2017 to fund
the shortfall in the WSIB Reserve.
Staff is nearing completion of the DPPCC ‘business case’, which is scheduled to be presented to
the Community and Infrastructure Services Committee in the first quarter of 2017. That
business case is based on comparisons to other similar-sized community centres in the city and
the input and priorities of 1,197 residents who provided input through a community
engagement process. It will also provide a concept for the centre expansion that reflects the
space and amenity needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods and a Class D budget estimate for
that concept.
The project team has been reviewing the concept for the centre expansion and made a number
of cost saving changes. However, the project remains over budget by approximately $200,000,
due solely to the inclusion of a splash pad within the project scope.
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
Community Centre Expansion Project
The DPPCC is one of the City’s smaller community centres at 9,720 square feet and is scheduled
for an expansion in the 2017 capital budget. The currentscope of the expansion project
includes the addition of a double gym and two program rooms. It also moves the washrooms,
offices and lobby space in the facility to allow for better visibility and flow throughout the
centre. The expansion would renovate approximately 4,000 square feet and add roughly 6,000
square feet to the centre (for a total facility size of approximately 15,800 square feet). This
would be similar to other mid-sized community centres such as Country Hills and Kingsdale
Community Centres. Staff believe the scope of this expansion, although a bit smaller than
originally planned, would address the top priorities for indoor space as expressed by the
community.
Splash Pad at the Community Centre
The number one most valuable outdoor amenity at the DPPCC, as identified by residents, is the
existing splash pad located on the centre property. Doon Pioneer Park was the first community
centre to have a splash pad as an amenity, however, over time its functionality has decreased
and it is now in poor condition. Chandler Mowat, Centreville Chicopee, and Kingsdale
community centres all have splash pads on site. In all instances the splash pads are well used in
FINAL - 69
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
the communities, providing a no-cost option for children and families, looking for some relief
from the heat in the summer.
In an effort to respond to the high value residentsputs on this outdoor amenity, the project
team has tried to include the replacement of the splash pad within in the community centre
expansion project budget. The inclusion of an outdoor amenity like this is not usually included
in a project budget for a community centre expansion. Unfortunately, it has become clear that
attempting to include funding for the splash pad ($200,000) within the community centre
expansion budget would come at the cost of the expansion itself – defeating the original intent
of the project and increasing the risk the expansion will not successfully meet the needs of the
community for usable indoor space. Therefore, if alternative funding cannot be found for the
splash pad replacement, staff would recommend removing the replacement of the splash pad
from the scope of the expansion project.
Reallocation of Funding from Upper Canada Park Skate Park
Given its close proximity with DPPCC, the Upper Canada Park Master Plan recognizes that the
DPPCC expansion should be coordinated closely to avoid duplication of services and consolidate
outdoor recreational amenities where appropriate. To that end, staff have evaluated the timing
of other planned works within Upper Canada Park (UCP) and identified an opportunity to
reallocate some funding to the replacement of the DPPCC splash pad in 2017.
The first phase of the UCP Master Plan isthe sports-field improvements (revised
implementation timing set for 2017/2018), followed by neighbourhood park improvements and
the development of a skate park (revised implementation timing set for 2019). A full report
providing information on the Upper Canada Park Sports-field improvements is scheduled to go
to Community and Infrastructure Services Committee in the first quarter of 2017.
As part of the original project schedule, skate park funding of $550,000 has been allotted in the
2017 budget. Given that the likely timing of a skate park implementation has been pushed out
to 2019, staffbelieve a portion of the 2017 fundingcould be allocated to the DPPCC splash pad.
Council could consider moving $91,000 from the skate park funding and adding this to the
$109,000 growth allocation to cover the shortfall, or moving $200,000 from the skate park
funding and considering another use for the $109,000 growth allocation, such as allocating it to
the WSIB reserve as originally recommended by staff. Once the detailed design for the skate
park is initiated in late 2017, any anticipated budget shortfalls, due to the transfer of funds
(either $91,000 or $200,000), would be addressed through scope reductions to the skatepark
design to bring it within the reduced budget and/or augmented funding through a future
budget process. It should also be noted that the Upper Canada Park Master Plan identified, for
future work, the potential for a splash pad in the park if the splash pad could not be
accommodated within the DPPCC expansion. Providing the splash pad improvements as part of
the DPPCCexpansion in 2017 will eliminate the need for a splash pad at Upper Canada
Neighbourhood Park in the future (currently unbudgeted).
FINAL - 70
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The current budget estimate for the expansion of the DPPCC is approximately $200,000 over
the allotted $3.774 million budget – all of which is related to the replacement of the splash pad.
The project team has identified a number of ways to reduce that cost, however, without
removingthe splash pad, any further reductions in scope wouldhave a significant impact on
the size of the centre expansion itself.
Staff have identified three options related to the splash pad at the DPPCC:
1.Transfer the growth allocation of $109,000 to the project expansion budget to cover the
cost of the splash pad and fund the remaining shortfall of $91,000 from the UCP skate
park;
2.Transfer $200,000 from the UCP skate park to the project expansion budget to fund the
shortfall associated with the replacement of the splash pad; or
3.Do not look for additional funding for the splash pad, and remove this amenity from the
Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre expansion project scope.
Implementation of either option 2 or 3 would allow Council to consider staff’s recommendation
to allocate the 2017 growth funding of $109,000 for the DPPCC to the WSIB reserve.
RECOMMENDATION:
For discussion.
FINAL - 71
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD06 – Brownfield Remediation Program
FUND:Capital
DEPARTMENT: CAO’s Office – Economic Development
PREPARER: Robert Morgan –Capital Investment Advisor
BUDGET IMPACT: $375,000 annually from 2019-2026
BACKGROUND:
At the November 28, 2016 Capital Review, Council requested staff provide additional
information around the benefits of the Brownfield program and why the funds come from the
Capital Pool instead of the Economic Development Reserve.
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
The City of Kitchener has had a Brownfield Tax Incremental Grant Program (BTIGP) since
November of 2003. Subsequently, the Region of Waterloo approved their Regional Brownfield
Financial Incentive Program (BFIP) in late 2006. The Regional BFIP (jointly funded using both
the Regional and City tax increment) now consists of the following three incentive programs for
developers.
1.Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Grants – a cost sharing program which
funds up to 50% of eligible costs associated with the completion of environmental site
investigation, in the form of a Phase Two ESA report, to a maximum of $40,000 – this is
funded by the Region only;
2.Regional Development Charge (RDC) Exemptions – development charge exemptions are
provided through the RDC By-law up to a maximum of the total eligible remediation costs
incurred for the remediation of environmentally impacted sites in areas where RDCs would
otherwise be due– this is funded by the Region only; and
3.Tax Increment Grants (TIG) – a joint programthat further offsets remediation costs by
providing grants to developers who remediate and redevelop a brownfield site. The TIG
program is operated jointly with the Cities of Cambridge, Waterloo, and Kitchener and
shares a common set of eligibility requirements and identical program characteristics. For
example, annual payments are provided each year until the eligible remediation costs
incurred have been recouped, to a maximum of 10 annual payments, subject to Council
approval, with a capped maximum value, and provided the property owner(s) continue to
pay all taxes – this is funded by the Region and the local municipality.
The Brownfield Program was established in order to:
encourage the remediation of contaminated lands;
promote compact growth that utilizes existing infrastructure;
reduce the outward expansion of the urban area;
mitigate potential risk to Regional groundwater sources;
generate increased tax revenue from previously under-utilized or abandoned
properties; and;
support the adaptive reuse of buildings, including heritage properties.
FINAL - 72
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
Approved Brownfield Projects
Utilizing a sample of four Council-approved brownfield properties which were redeveloped
between 2004 and 2016, the table below outlines the financial benefits of the program
Total Council Investment(Region & City)through annual TIGs: $1,161,683
2004 2016 Increase
Assessed Value $6,020,000$101,586,840 $95,566,840
Total Property Taxes Billed
$270,735$2,533,083 $2,262,348
(Region, City, School Board)
Developers have indicated in the past that if it were not for the BTIGP they would not have
undertaken the redevelopment of projects such as The Intowns at 110 Highland Rd E (a 128-
unit townhouse development built on a former industrial site) or 55 Mooregate (a 31 unit
townhouse development built on a former landfill). The properties were contaminated, sitting
vacant and generating nominal tax revenue. Now these properties provide new annual tax
revenue in perpetuity.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Funds from the Brownfield program are provided from an ongoing capital budget instead of the
Economic Development Reserve (EDR) as the EDR has no ongoing funding source. Transferring
the costs of the Brownfield program to the EDR would deplete the reserve, meaning items
planned to be funded from the EDR would not proceed.
RECOMMENDATION:
For Information.
FINAL - 73
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD07 – Impact of Economic Development Reserve Outside of Downtown
FUND:Capital
DEPARTMENT: CAO’s Office – Economic Development
PREPARER: Cory Bluhm, Interim Executive Director of Economic Development
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
At Capital Review, Council asked staff to report back on how the various Make It Kitchener
programs, funded through the Economic Development Reserve, benefit the community outside
of the downtown. In particular, Council asked staff to explore opportunities for placemaking
initiatives that could benefit business areas outside of the downtown.
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
The following chart identifies the items from the Economic Development Reserve that were
subject to discussion at Capital Review. While most of the initiatives will be located in the
Downtown, the users of these initiatives (Geography Served) will come from all over the city,
and ultimately benefit (Indirect Benefits) the community as a whole in some shape or form.
Expenditure Location of Activity Geography Served Indirect Benefits
Physician RecruitmentCity-wide City-wide City-wide
Small Business Centre
Urban City-wide City-wide
Programs
Carl Zehr SquareUrban City-wide City-wide
MIK-Velocity Expansion Urban City-wide City-wide
MIK-THEMUSEUM Maker
Urban City-wide City-wide
Space
MIK-Music Film & Interactive
Urban City-wide City-wide
Media Industry Office
MIK-Communitech Grant Urban City-wide City-wide
TBD (could be urban
MIK-Incubator Capacity and suburban City-wide City-wide
locations)
MIK-Maker Expo Urban City-wide City-wide
MIK-Digital Kitchener City-wide City-wide City-wide
MIK-DC Exemption (City
Urban Urban Urban
Centre)
MIK-44 Gaukel Urban City-wide City-wide
MIK – Communications,
City-wide City-wide City-wide
Events, Studies
Similarly, staff have assessed all 54 action items from the Make It Kitchener strategy (see
attachment). Of these, 44 benefit the larger community. Only 10 of the 54 actions are
exclusively located downtown, primarily serve the downtown community, and predominantly
benefit the downtown community.
FINAL - 74
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
Likewise, many of Economic Development’s core services, while often occurring in the
downtown, serve the entire city. The Kitchener Market and Special Events, for example,
recently surveyed its customer base and determined that their customers come from all parts
of the city. The City’s public art collection is distributed throughout the community, Business
Development provides recruitment and retention services to all businesses, in particular
manufacturing companies in our business parks (e.g. the Manufacturing Innovation Network)
and the Small Business Centre serve businesses throughout the region.
Based on the foregoing, staff are confident that, while many economic development activities
may be located or focused in the core, they in fact serve the entire community.
Placemaking Outside Downtown
Placemaking initiatives outside the downtown have historically occurred on an ad-hoc,
opportunistic or site-specific basis. They are usually permanent streetscape or public realm
features and happen through new development, neighbourhood-driven initiatives, or when the
Planning division nominally adds to a Regional Road project (i.e. Fairway Road bridge city entry
features and seating area) or City project (i.e. Belmont Village entry features, crosswalks and
streetscaping). The Neighbourhood Strategy encourages and supports resident-led
placemaking through the Neighbourhood Matching Grant and proposed actions to create a
Neighbourhood Places Program and Placemaking Challenge.
Staff would agree that business-focused placemaking initiatives have generally been focused
downtown. However, the Make It Kitchener Strategy identifies the need to facilitate city-wide
urbanism. As an initial pilot, the City could consider (as part of the proposed Neighbourhood
Placemaking Challenge) an annual grant of $10,000, to which non-downtown business areas
could submit proposals for a placemaking initiative that would enhance the identity of their
area and promote themselves to the larger community. Initiatives could include, but not be
limited to street banners, street signs, crosswalk murals, landscape enhancements, gathering
areas, etc.
While areas like Belmont Village, Lancaster Street, and Williamsburg Town Centre are potential
candidates to apply, any of the city’s numerous nodes, corridors, commercial areas or business
parks could also apply. Such initiatives would not only boost the identity of the area, but
encourage businesses to work collaboratively, much like the City’s two Business Improvement
Areas.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None at this time.
Should Council direct staff to pursue the above noted Placemaking Initiative, staff recommend
reallocating $10,000 of funding from line 29 of the reserve – MIK -Communications, Events and
Studies.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
FINAL - 75
Geographic scope of Make it Kitchener action items
'¤®¦± ¯§¸ )£¨±¤¢³
#!¢³¨® )³¤¬ ,®¢ ³¨®
²¤±µ¤£ ¡¤¤¥¨³²
Make it SPARK
1UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
2Expand support for maker-instigated event programming, including UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
Discovery Square and Maker Expo.
3Explore options to support the creation of additional makerspaces Urban and/or City-wideCity-wide
where gaps might exist.suburban
4Support investments in community tools and programming, like the UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
Video Competition.
5Support programming that encourages digital literacy programs for City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
women and girls.
6Support hackathons, working groups and conferences in emerging City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
fields such as health sciences and Fintech.
7Expand funding for the artist-in-residence program and accept Urban and/or City-wideCity-wide
applications from artists working in any discipline.suburban
8Sponsor skill development workshops in creative industries such as City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
theatre, music and film.
9Support professional development in user experience design.UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
Make it START
10Support the development of an advanced maker lab, offering Urban or City-wideCity-wide
specialized accelerator programming for startup manufacturers.suburban
11Replicate the Downtown Startup Landing Pad program city-wide to SuburbanSuburbanSuburban
help redeploy underutilized industrial buildings for
hardware/manufacturing startups.
12Support digital content startups by facilitating the development of a UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
digital content incubator in 44 Gaukel.
13Explore additional innovative solutions to make affordable space UrbanUrbanUrban
available to startups; for example, support the reuse of downtown
homes as offices and workspaces for emerging businesses.
14UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
rehearsal spaces, entrepreneurial and promotional services, skills
development, and event programming.
15Continue to use the Kitchener Market, Night Art Markets and special UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
events to support prospective artisans, musicians, culinary
entrepreneurs and retailers seeking to enter the marketplace.
16Explore opportunities for pop-up retail to allow prospective UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
entrepreneurs to test concepts and products.
17Explore the potential development of a food and restaurant UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
incubator/co-working space.
18Support the development of life sciences startups in association with UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
the University of Waterloo Velocity program.
As of 12/14/2016 Page 1
FINAL - 76
Geographic scope of Make it Kitchener action items
'¤®¦± ¯§¸ )£¨±¤¢³
#!¢³¨® )³¤¬ ,®¢ ³¨®
²¤±µ¤£ ¡¤¤¥¨³²
19Supplement a core set of business skills development programs with Waterloo Region-wideRegion-wide
topical training, like food or retail workshops.Region SBC
locations
20Continue to mobilize mentors and ambassadors to support entry into Waterloo Region-wideRegion-wide
the local entrepreneurial ecosystem, targeting people in transition Region SBC
(e.g., youth, new Canadians). locations
21Expand the Downtown Startup Landing Pad program to support UrbanUrbanCity-wide
creative and cultural industries and establish offices of national and
international venture capital firms.
22Support investment attraction through partner initiatives like City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
Techtoberfest.
Make it GROW
23Retain startups as they graduate from local programs like Velocity City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
Garage, Velocity Foundry, or LaunchPad.
PA1Support Communitech renovations of former Google space to UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
establish room for growing enterprises.
24Explore new opportunities to support manufacturing through the City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
Manufacturing Innovation Network (MIN).
25Work with local post-secondary educational institutes to ensure City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
programming reflects the training needs of the business community.
26Encourage business investment and cost-competitiveness by waiving Select Select City-wide
or reducing some development charges, offering heritage and façade geography geography
grants, and supporting the regional brownfield program.across the across the
citycity
27Work in partnership with the regional economic development City-wideCity-wideRegion-wide
corporation to create an environment that is responsive to business
needs.
28Conduct a retail analysis to identify mechanisms to support both urban City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
retail and retail centres in suburban neighbourhoods.
29Continue to act as a liaison between expanding businesses and City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
property owners.
30Partner with regional municipalities to establish a music, film and Region-wideRegion-wideRegion-wide
media officer to facilitate cluster development and provide
professional, craft and entrepreneurial support services.
31Redevelop a joint film location services website, leveraging the existing Kitchener and Kitchener and Region-wide
WaterlooWaterloo
Make it URBAN
32Advance the redevelopment of City-owned lands in the Innovation UrbanUrbanUrban
District and Civic District for mixed-use intensification projects.
33Support the development of Station Area Plans with appropriate land Central City-wideRegion-wide
use, zoning, density and urban design provisions to encourage future Transit
growth along the ION Light Rail Transit line.Corridor
34Work with building owners to use vacant space as collision spaces for City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
entrepreneurs and supporters.
As of 12/14/2016 Page 2
FINAL - 77
Geographic scope of Make it Kitchener action items
'¤®¦± ¯§¸ )£¨±¤¢³
#!¢³¨® )³¤¬ ,®¢ ³¨®
²¤±µ¤£ ¡¤¤¥¨³²
35Broaden the landing pad and façade grant programs to encourage the UrbanUrbanUrban
subdivision of downtown retail space to support sustainable retail
operations, and permit rear-access office or commercial space.
36Embrace and plan for new urban amenities, such as dog parks, pop-up UrbanUrbanUrban
parks, bistro chairs, cycling super sharrows, street trees and
furnishings.
37Encourage city-wide do-it-yourself urbanism (e.g., guerilla gardening, City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
little libraries).
38Continue to advance the Kitchener Market as the heart of the urban UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
food community.
Make it VIBRANT
39Work with key event organizers to develop festivals that regional City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
tourism partners can promote to a global audience.
40Facilitate the collision of niche communities and programs into larger City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
coordinated events and festivals.
41City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
citizen-led placemaking in neighbourhoods, and the creation of highly
participatory experiences.
42Implement a community-led public art program through our City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
neighbourhood matching fund grant.
43Continue to grow the Kitchener Market as a cherished community UrbanCity-wideCity-wide
building to include, for example, pop-up markets, LRT station branding
and external events.
44Invigorate passive and under-utilized urban spaces (like alleys, UrbanUrbanUrban
parkettes, empty storefronts) as venues for community experiences
and creative expression. Start by activating our City Hall retail space
for visual arts.
45Continue the Downtown Live program to develop and showcase UrbanUrbanCity-wide
emerging and established local musicians in venues like Carl Zehr
Square, Victoria Park and the Kitchener Market.
46Develop performer-friendly policies like unloading permits, and ensure City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
Downtown Live performers have access to technicians, appropriate
equipment and fair compensation.
47Facilitate policies and programs to encourage live performances City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
everywhere, including venue development to support opportunities
for performance experiences in venues of all sizes.
48Portray community diversity through equitable representation in City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
programs like Downtown Live.
Make it CONNECT
49Advocate for two-way all-day GO Trains (and future high-speed rail) UrbanCity-wideRegion-wide
between Kitchener and Toronto.
50Champion the adoption of ION Rapid Transit by the business Central City-wideRegion-wide
community.Transit
Corridor
As of 12/14/2016 Page 3
FINAL - 78
Geographic scope of Make it Kitchener action items
'¤®¦± ¯§¸ )£¨±¤¢³
#!¢³¨® )³¤¬ ,®¢ ³¨®
²¤±µ¤£ ¡¤¤¥¨³²
51Support Kitchener's upcoming digital strategy by advocating for better City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
fibre and wireless infrastructure.
52Work with our regional economic development corporation, tourism City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
corporation, and Waterloo and Cambridge to promote Kitchener and
the region abroad.
53Extend our Kitchener brand into the digital and physical environment City-wideCity-wideCity-wide
(e.g., signs, websites, communications).
54Formalize the physical identity of the Innovation District through UrbanUrbanCity-wide
urban design elements, and promote the district as the centre of the
As of 12/14/2016 Page 4
FINAL - 79
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD08 - Proceeds of Sale from 48 OntarioStreet North
FUND:Capital
DEPARTMENT: CAO’s Office – Economic Development
PREPARER: Cory Bluhm, Interim Executive Director of Economic Development
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
th
On December 12, Council passed a resolution that 50% of the proceeds of the future sale of 48
Ontario Street be used to support the development of the Creative Hub, while the remaining
50% be directed to the 2017 Budget discussions.
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
Council Policy/Practice
It is Council Policy that the sale of Downtown lands be directed to the Economic Development
Reserve. As such, a new revenue line item in the Economic Development Reserve will be
created entitled “Sale of 48 Ontario St N”, to receive the proceeds upon closing the sale of the
property. Once a sale closes, two new expense line items would also be created:
-50% of the sale proceeds – allocated to a “Creative hub” expenditures line; and,
-50% of the sale proceeds – allocated to a “MIK – New Investments” expenditure line.
Council would then have an opportunity to reassign the “MIK – New Investments” funds to
other initiatives within the Reserve or identify new initiatives to add to the Reserve.
It should also be noted that 48 Ontario Street North was originally purchased using funds from
the Economic Development Investment Fund (EDIF). It has generally been the practice of
Council that proceeds from the sale of any assets acquired through EDIF be directed back to the
Economic Development Reserve.
Concerns Around Timing
Assigning firm budget allocations in advance of the final receipt of proceeds from the sale of 48
Ontario St N could prove problematic for the following reasons:
i)There is no certainty that the property will in fact sell;
ii)It is the City’s typical approach that a property sale will not close until the time of
building permit issuance, which could be up to 24 months after Council has selected
a preferred proponent;
iii)In the event the successful proponent does not execute a building permit or
complete the project, it is the City’s standard approach to maintain ownership of, or
repurchase the property, which could be more than 12 months after closing.
As all three of the above options are possible outcomes, it is possible that the proceeds from a
sale will not be acquired by the City in 2017, which means that any associated budget
implications should be considered as part of the 2018 budget process.
FINAL - 80
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
That, as per Council Policy, the following three lines be added to the Economic Development
Reserve projection in relation to the anticipated sale of 48 Ontario St N:
-Revenue line – Sale of 48 Ontario St N
-Expense line – Creative Hub
-Expense line – MIK-New Investments
And further, that once the sale is finalized and funds are received, the actual dollar values be
added to the Economic Development Reserve projection and Council make decisions with
respect to the actual expenses, as Council has control over all spending from reserves.
FINAL - 81
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD09 - Arts Sustainability Funding
FUND:Operating
DEPARTMENT: Community Services Department –Administration
PREPARER: Renate Willms, Supervisor of Administration
Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
th
At the December 5 Community and Infrastructure Services Committee meeting, Council asked
for historic funding information for THEMUSEUM, the Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery (KWAG),
and the Kitchener Waterloo Symphony (KWS).
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
The City of Kitchener has long supported each of THEMUSEUM, KWAG, and KWS through Tier 1
cash and in-kind grants that cover operating and maintenance costs. In 2010, the City increased
their support to these organizations by granting cash through the ArtsSustainability Fund.
THEMUSEUM received $120,000, with KWAG and KWS each receiving $40,000. This Arts
Sustainability funding has remained in place at these levels since 2010.
As requested by Council, the tables below show the amount of funding provided to each of
these three organizations in 2009, 2010, and 2016 as well as the increase in City funding. The
calculated effective increases for these three organizations from 2009 to 2016 are 53%
(THEMUSEUM), 25% (KWAG), and 34% (KWS) which represent annualized increases of 7.6%,
3.6% and 4.8% respectively.
(cash unless noted otherwise)
THEMUSEUM*
Tier 1 Annual Grant Arts Sustainability One Time %
Year Total
(in-kind)Fund (2010-16)Grant** Increase
2009 $103,267 -$50,000$153,267
2010 $105,332 $120,000 -$225,332
2016 $114,603 $120,000 -$234,603
Change
$ 11,336 $120,000$(50,000)$ 81,336 53%
from 2009
*There is also has a lease agreement in place which provides use of the facility at no charge,
which is not included in this chart.
** The one time grant was to offset operating costs for 2009. Excluding this amount, the
effective increase from 2009 to 2016 would be 127% (18.2% annualized).
FINAL - 82
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
KWAG
Arts Sustainability Tier 2 %
Year Tier 1 Annual Grant Total
Fund (2010-16) GrantIncrease
$237,069
2009 ($149,818 operating; - $5,000 $242,069
$87,251 facility rental)
$240,065
2010 ($152,814 operating; $40,000 $5,000 $285,065
$87,251 facility rental)
$261,782
2016 ($166,262 operating; $40,000 $1,000 $302,782
$95,520 facility rental)
Change
$ 24,713 $40,000 $(4,000) $ 60,713 25%
from 2009
KWS
Arts Sustainability %
Year Tier 1 Annual Grant Other Total
Fund (2010-16) Increase
2009 $176,868 - - $176,868
2010 $180,405 $40,000 - $220,405
2016 $196,282 $40,000 - $236,282
Change
$ 19,414 $40,000 - $ 59,414 34%
from 2009
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
FINAL - 83
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD10 – Enhancing Integrity Commissioner ServicesFollow Up
FUND:Operating
DEPARTMENT: Finance & Corporate Services –Legislated Services
PREPARER: Christine Tarling, Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk
BUDGET IMPACT: For discussion (NOT included in budget)
BACKGROUND:
During Operating budget discussions on November 14, staff was directed to provide additional
information about Integrity Commissioner (IC) services namely,how many conflicts of interest
have been declared in the past 5-10 years, and how IC services may be funded?
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
As noted in the original Integrity Commissioner (IC) issue paper (Op 03), Council discussed IC
services in October as part of report FCS-16-150. Council requested additional information
about the budget implications of facilitating members of Council with access to the provision of
legal advice under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and Code of Conduct formal advice and
consultation services in addition to education and training services from the Integrity
Commissioner. These were addressed in the issue paper Op 03.
The budget of the Office of Mayor and Council contains a $2,000 annual provision for the IC
which reflects the extremely low level of activity for the IC since 2009. The hourly rate quoted
by the City’s IC is $250, which equates to 8 hours of service and is sufficient to provide for
periodic education and training. What Council now needs to decide is:
1)Should there be a budget allocation for additional IC services?
a.If so, how much, and what happens to any unspent funds?
2)Should there be a limit per Council Member for additional IC services?
a.If so, how much?
The table below shows a history of the number of declarations of conflict of interest madeby
members of council for the terms of 2010–2014 and 2014–present, which represents a total of
109 declarations or 18 per year on average (many of which would relate to similar matters):
Council Member# of CofI Declarations
B. Ioannidis24
B. Vrbanovic1
D. Glenn-Graham4
D. Schnider1
F. Etherington8
J. Gazzola5
K. Galloway-Sealock2
P. Singh54
S. Davey2
S. Marsh1
Y. Fernandes1
Z. Janecki6
FINAL - 84
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
This analysis shows that, with the exception of a small number of Councillors, pecuniary
interests are relatively uncommon. This would suggest the consumption of external legal
services would be relatively low, equating to a utilization rate of 25% or less per year based on
past experience.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There is no budget provision for legal advice or consultation related to conflicts of interest. If
each member of council were provided a $5,000 limit for these services (consistent with the
Region of Waterloo), the maximum annual cost would be $55,000. If Council believes the
actual usage will be something less than the maximum amount, it can choose to set limit of
$5,000 per member but set a budget below the maximum possible amount ($55,000). The
following table shows the budget required based on varying levels of IC utilization, assuming a
$5,000 limit per Council member:
Budget Funding % Average amount of the AverageEquivalent Hours of Total Budget
(assuming $5,000 $5,000 limit actually used Service per Council Member Increase
limit per Councilor) per Council Member @ $250/Hr. Needed
0%$0 0 hours $0
25%* $1,250 5 hours$13,750
50% $2,500 10 hours $27,500
75% $3,750 15 hours $41,250
100% $5,000 20 hours $55,000
Regardless of what budget is set by Council, under current operations any differences from the
budget would be included in the overall annual surplus/deficit for tax supported operations and
be closed out using the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund. This is how all tax supported operations
are managed with the exception of Winter Control, which has its own reserve fund for
surpluses/deficits.
If Council wants to hold these funds specifically for IC services, a new reserve fund would need
to be created that would outline the source/use of the funds, and set minimum/maximum
target balances.Given the relatively small values, a separate reserve is not recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
That members of Council be permitted to access Code of Conduct advisory services from the
Integrity Commissioner and Municipal Conflict of Interest Act legal advice from an independent
lawyer up to a limit of $5,000 per year per member of Council; and,
That an increase in the Mayor and Council’s operating budget of $13,750 be approved for 2017
to fund the anticipated cost of these new services and/or costs associated with the work of the
Integrity Commissioner; and further,
That staff be directed to prepare a policy for Council approval which will govern the
consumption of these new advisory services.
FINAL - 85
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD11 – Increasing Exposure to Workplace Safety Insurance Board (WSIB)
Costs Follow Up
FUND:Operating (WSIB reserve funded through fringe benefits)
DEPARTMENT: FCS –Human Resources
PREPARER: Michael Goldrup, Director, Human Resources
BUDGET IMPACT: For Discussion
BACKGROUND:
During the November 14, 2016 operating budget review discussion several inquiries were made
pertaining to the issue paper recommending an increase in funding to the WSIB reserve fund.
This issue paper provides further clarification on the following questions:
1.Explain the difference between the liability provided by WSIB ($15M) and the actuarial
estimates noted in the City’s financial statements ($6.3M).
2.How does Kitchener’s WSIB liability compare to neighbouring municipalities?
3.What can the City do to mitigate risk of new claims?
4.What advocacy work is being done by the City and municipal organizations to mitigate
WSIB claims costs increasing?
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
1.Explanation of the difference between the liability provided by WSIB and the actuarial
estimates noted in the City’s financial statements.
The main reason the estimate of future benefit costs from the WSIB statement is larger than
that of an independent actuary is due to the provision for presumptive legislation for
firefighters.This is a new item that WSIB has included and amounts to approximately $7.8
million, which includes claims estimates calculated by WSIB plus the WSIB 34.3% (2015 Rate)
administration charge.
As of the last full actuarial valuation performed at the City (December 31, 2014), there was no
complete experience data specific to presumptive legislation available, so this was not included
in the independent actuarial estimate. The City is scheduled for a full valuation by an actuary
every three years, which would be as at December 31, 2017. It is estimated the next
independent actuarial valuation will increase due to the addition of presumptive legislation.
But because of methodology differences (WSIB uses reported claims, pending retroactive
claims, and a provision for benefits not yet awarded) it can be assumed that for each reporting
period, the WSIB report could differ from the independent actuary.
2.How does Kitchener’s WSIB liability compare to neighboring municipalities?
Due to the sensitivity of the information, we are unable to obtain the specific details of the
WSIB evaluation of future liability for other municipalities or collect specific information about
the claim cases that would contribute to their WSIB liability.
When the 2014 presumptive cancer legislation was approved, WSIB began calculating a
provision for presumptive cancer legislation into evaluations that did not previously exist. The
FINAL - 86
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
City of Kitchener has had a number of approved presumptive cancer claims approved by WSIB.
The more cases the City has approved, the higher the approved benefits that are in force and
estimated value of future benefits will be on the City’s WSIB evaluation. If other municipalities
have not yet had a significantnumber of high cost presumptive cancer claims approved, their
liability for both approved benefits that are in force and provision for future benefits will be
lower.
3.What the City can do to mitigate risk of new claims?
Recognizing the inherent risks firefighters face in the course of their work, the Kitchener Fire
Department has taken a very progressive and proactive approach to implementing safety and
wellness programs. These programs are in place for the protection of firefighters, and also help
to prevent illness and injury. Examples include, but are not limited to:
increased air monitoring,
decontamination and hygiene protocols,
proactive cancer prevention program,
mandatory medical screening,
PTSD awareness campaigns,
mental resilience training,
increased psychological preventative therapy benefits
critical incident stress protocols
access to employee and family services counselling
The understanding of the causes of illness in firefighting is being studied vigorously by various
parties to determine all potential causes. This has resulted in greater understanding of the
exposures to cancer causing agents, contributing factors to cardiac events and traumatic stress.
Continued improvement will occur as new information about potential risk in the fire
profession emerges over time.
Presumptive cancer claims and potentially also Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) claims are
proving to be costly for all municipalities with Fire services. The ability to mitigate costs relative
to new cases through case management, return to work and accommodation is limited by the
illness and ability of the individual through medically evidenced restrictions and capabilities.
Unfortunately those withadvanced or severcancer or PTSD are more likely to be sufficiently ill
that returning to work or accommodation may not be a possibility. Many new presumptive
cancer claims are also for those who no longer work at the City due to retirement. The City of
Kitchener currently has several types of programs in place to help mitigate occupational health
care and lost time costs. The programs are designed to educate, inform and support
employees, both at work and in their personal lives, as well as achieve safety prevention
compliance.
Organization-wide Prevention Programs
The following injury/illness prevention programs/resources are currently in place corporately.
All of these programs assist in mitigating the potential for new future claims and costs.
FINAL - 87
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
Corporate Safety Strategy aimed at improving our Culture of Safety and Wellbeing based
on Canadian Standards Association Standard for Safety Management
Comprehensive Safety Program for Compliance and Prevention
Ergonomic Assessment, Training and Tools for Injury Prevention
Wellness Sessions
Joint Health and Safety Committees and Health and Safety Representatives
Monthly workplace inspections for proactive hazard identification
To be a supportive employer, to be fiscally responsible, and to try to reduce the length of any
lost time absences, the City has a Workplace Accommodation Program that provides a process
for accommodating employees on a temporary or permanent basis. This program applies to
staff that have either occupational or non-occupational illness or injury that requires
accommodation. The Program provides supervisors with the tools and information they need to
make suitable, modified work offers as soon as possible after being advised of injury or illness
that requires accommodation in the workplace. Staff in Health and Safety assists the workplace
parties with return to work planning and accommodation where needed, monitor the programs
and correspond with health care professionals for clarification if required.
In addition to the City’s proactive work on an early and safe return to work, the WSIB has
Return to Work Specialists who are available and attend the workplace to assist with return to
work planning if required on WSIB cases. The City takes advantage of this service whenever
needed.
4.What advocacy work is being done by the City and municipal organizations to mitigate
WSIB claims costs increasing?
The City of Kitchener is not directly involved in any advocacy work with regards to WSIB claim
costsand is not aware of any provincial or municipal organized advocacy work for this purpose.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
As noted in the original WSIB issue paper, the City’s WSIB reserve balance has remained flat at
$1M since 2011 while the WSIB estimated costs for future benefits has increased dramatically
over the same time frame. The reserve balance is now well below the recommended amount
based on the City’s actuarial liability which exposes the City to a considerable financial risk
It is recommended that the annual, ongoing contribution to the reserve be increased to avert a
funding shortfall.If the City experiences claims in excess of the WSIB reserve, these would
represent a budget variance and ultimately translate to a reactive tax rate increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
That growth funding of $109,000, meant for the Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre
expansion but not required in 2017, be allocated to the WSIB reserve for 2017 only.
That any final assessment growth revenue, in excess of the 1.25% budget estimate, be allocated
to the WSIB reserve on an ongoing basis.
FINAL - 88
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD12 – Mileage and Per Diem Rates
FUND:Operating
DEPARTMENT: All
PREPARER: Bonnie Saunderson, Senior Financial Analyst
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
To provide a comparison of the current mileage and per diem rates used by local municipalities.
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
Mileage Rate
The following is a comparison of current mileage rates utilized by local municipalities to
reimburse employees who use their personal vehicle for business purposes. Discussions with
these other local municipalities indicate mileage rates will be held at 2016 levels with no
increase.
Municipality Rate/km
$0.50 First 5,000 kilometres
City of Kitchener
$0.45 Over 5,000 kilometres
$0.51 First 5,000 kilometres
City of Cambridge
$0.47 Over 5,000 kilometres
City of Waterloo $0.46
$0.50 First 5,000 kilometres
Region of Waterloo
$0.47 Over 5,000 kilometres
The 2016 tax exempt allowance rates as prescribed by the Department of Finance are $0.54/km
for the first 5,000 kilometres driven, and $0.48/km for each additional kilometre.
Analysis of the calculated cost per kilometre to own and operate a vehicle indicates the City’s
rate could be increased to $0.51 per kilometre. Considering the current rate is reasonable in
comparison to the other local municipalities, it is recommended that the City also maintain its
mileage rate at 2016 levels.
Per Diem Rates
The following is a comparison of current per diem rates used by local municipalities.
Municipality Breakfast Lunch Dinner Incidentals Total
City of Kitchener $ 12 $ 16 $ 30 $ 10 $ 68
City of Cambridge $ 15 $ 20 $ 35 $ - $ 65
City of Waterloo $ 15 $ 25 $ 35 $ - $ 75
Region of Waterloo $ 12 $ 16 $ 30 $ 10 $ 68
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
FINAL - 89
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City of Kitchener’s rate per kilometre remain at $0.50 for the first 5,000 kilometres
driven, and $0.45 for each additional kilometre.
That the City of Kitchener’s per diem rates remain at $68/day ($12 for breakfast, $16 for lunch,
$30 for dinner, and $10 for incidentals).
FINAL - 90
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
ISSUE: BD13 - 2017 Budget Public Input
FUND:Operatingand Capital
DEPARTMENT: General
PREPARER: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
Public input into budget matters starts well before the formal budget process. This includes
City-wide consultations such as the 2013 Environics survey, the 2014 Your Kitchener, Your Say!
consultation, or the 2016 Neighbourhood Strategy as well as more focused consultations for
specific topics such as the Kiwanis Park Pool (2015), or City Hall Outdoor Spaces (2016).
In addition to these consultations, the City also receives feedback about the proposed budget
during the budget process.
RATIONALE / ANALYSIS:
Budget consultation is done through traditional means like mail, phone, or in person during
Public Input Night (January 16, 2017) as well as electronic means like email, responding to City
of Kitchener Facebook and Twitter posts, or through the Engage Kitchener survey about the
2017 budget.
th
As of December 18, feedback about the 2017 budget has primarily been received through
Engage Kitchener. The three topics covered in the survey are:
1.Budget Awareness
2.Infrastructure Replacement
3.2017 Budget
In total 137 people had viewed the information, with 33 people providing responses. The 2017
budget survey responses collected to date through Engage Kitchener has been summarized and
attached to the issue paper. As well, any comments received through open-ended questions
have been provided. The Engage Kitchener 2017 budget survey will remain open until early
January and the updated results will be provided to Council for Public Input Night (January 16,
2017).
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
FINAL - 91
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
TOPIC 1: BUDGET AWARENESS
The always increasing police budget...Accessibility for residents including snow removal
Library, community centres and school services
Infrastructure
Arts & culture, infrastructure
FINAL - 92
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
Education and transportation.
what this will cost me.
Capital side of the budget.
All
Fire services and the downloading of costs to surcharges on water and utilities
Transportation (trails and roads)
The cost to the taxpayer!
Cycling infrastructure and transit system.
infrastructure/roads/trails
I'd say I'm interested in the budget as a whole and how the individual pieces fit in.
Infrastructure and capital expenditures.
Operating costs, Road Maintenance
Roads, water, fire
$$$$$$$$$
community services
Expenditures. Actual reasons for the constant high increases in taxes - including utility
fees.
Planning & EcDev, KPL, & Rec & Leisure
Please stop funding Ontario's Catholic schools. I don't want my tax dollars supporting
religious education, particularly a system that promotes sexism and homophobia.
Reduce costs across all services.
The city is doing a great job at finally reaching out to the public. I know in the past they
always have. The new approach with this style of survey and being on social media
makes the average person able to give their ideas. It gives them the feeling of respect
and makes them feel as if they are part of the city. Even if no one looked at the surveys
and was only doing them to look good ( that woukd be horrible ) woukd still be helping
the residents happy. Also I think more residents should be picked to have a valued vote
FINAL - 93
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
in the decision. Call for applications and then interview them be4 they get a vote and
there should be at least one person picked from each areaof town.
Please bear in mind that many people are on fixed budgets or have not had any
significant wage increases in the last eight years. While the efforts to keep the tax
increases in line are positive, remember that increases in water, sanitary and storm
sewers come from the same pocket. Breaking the costs down into multiple categories
does not decrease the amount taxpayers must pay.
Let me keep my money!!!
Consider cutting spending at the same time as always increasing taxes. This is not
sustainable.
TOPIC 2: INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT
FINAL - 94
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
Now that we are going to be catching up on the actual cost of infrastructure, the city
should use these increased rates as a tool to educate residents on the cost of sprawl and
the need for intensification.
As the city digs up roads to replace aging infrastructure it should use the opportunity to
assure that surface infrastructure is brought to modern standards too and not a new
version of what was. Bike tracks, lanes and trails should be mandated along major and
minor collectors. Vehicle lanes should be narrowed not just along collector routes but in
neighbourhoods where residential streets were overbuilt to accommodate both parked
traffic and two directions of movement. Parking in residential neihbourhoods can be
allowed as long as one lane of movement is possible, given the low level of vehicular
traffic along most residential streets. This assures a long term reduction in maintenance
with less road to clear of snow, less road to repair andan increase in permeable surfac,
leading to less runoff. This would not only show outward progress but (a standardization
of road width and a standard for where what type of cycling and pedestrian
infrastructure is most appropriate) could reduce the need for deliberation and review
when a change is proposed as a result of infrastructure replacement or expansion.
While I didn't list infrastructure as a primary concern above, I recognize the need to
maintain it and am happy that my tax dollars are being spent in this way.
What has been done to reduce costs?
The ion will be amazing for the city. The way it was done has affected the local business
so bad cuz of the way it was built. Why was so many streets close at one time the plan
should of bin to start at each end of track and build the track like they have been doing
for over 100 years . Team one Digging and preparing ahead of the team building the
track and a team cleaning up and opening the road behind them. So only a few blocks is
closed at one time. I know it's slower then having so many crews working all over at
once but the crews doing it my way would get so good at it cuz the would only have one
job over and over till it's done that by the end they are working section faster with less
labor costs 5hen the plan called for that section of track
I know the city of Kitchener is working on addressing the aging infrastructure. I think
Social Media updates about recently replaced lines would be a fantastic way to
showcase the work that you guys are doing.
While I understand the need for infrastructure replacement, then manor in which city is
using the taxation and user fees is disheartening. The user fees (i.e.: storm water) have
grown exponentially once taken out of the property tax portion of the bill. The storm
water management used to be in the property tax, was removed and put as a user fee
and the city said look how we are only raising property taxes minimally. But that wasn't
FINAL - 95
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
true as the portion of property tax was just changed to a user fee and added on top of
property taxes. Now those fees are climbing fast.
It would be nice to understand more clearly dollar values being applied to each area. In
the budget, I see an increase of $4.4 Million in salaries and wages from 2015, but only
an increase of $1.5 million for all of Equipment Reserve Charges, Materials & Supplies,
and Repairs & Maintenance. When you say you have to raise utility rates, taxes, and
service fees (and are now trying to add fixed delivery costs to water to drain even
more), it would be nice if the budget was more clear that these increases was for actual
work that is needed and being done, and not transfer funds to increase salaries.
TOPIC 3: 2017 BUDGET
Fight against the ever increasing police budget. Put more into social services. Snow
plow ALL sidewalks, crosswalks, and trails Eliminate all P3 agreements due to the
overwhelming evidence of them not working
What has been done to reduce costs?
I woukd like to be a member of council. I m a active member of the city and would give
100 percent to know everything about the budget and research the ideas I had be4 I
gave them.
How do veteran councilors and the Mayor look themselves in the mirror in the morning.
They are the reason we have the infrastructure deficit and while they provide generous
pay packages and COLA adjustments to staff they fail to realize that taxpayers do not
have growing incomes. Also we need to stop any bonuses or mediation on fire services.
I don't see any planning in the capital budget to convert Duke, St Leger, and Park streets
to underpasses under the GEXR tracks. With increasing train service these projects
should become more of a priority to reduce to the number of potential train/vehicle
interactions (cross-product) and reduce traffic congestion. They should be added at 2-5
year intervals in the capital budget. Because of the placement of the GO rail yard
relative to the future multi-modal hub trains have to leave the yard cross Duke and St
Leger BEFORE they begin their trip to Toronto and then cross them again once enroute;
the opposite happens in the evening. This means that even for the current 4 trains in
the AM, 4 trains in the morning there are 16 crossings every day not including freight
(+2?) or VIA (+2?) trains. Once GO service moves to hourly or faster, the number of
stoppages increases greatly. Lancaster also needs to be made into an overpass for the
same reason, but I realize that is a regional road. The leisure facilities master plan needs
to be updated to plan for a major facility or multiple facilities downtown. More and
more people are living downtown, but there are no proper indoor tracks, swimming
FINAL - 96
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
pools, etc. for these new residents to use and they need to leave the core to access
them. Currently all the proposed investments are in newor refurbishing facilities in the
suburbs; this needs to be rebalanced.
Traffic is becoming an increasing concern. My dream would be that there is an east-west
LRT to link with the LRT that is currently being built. In its absence, it would be helpful to
have upgraded cycling infrastructure so that cyclists could get downtown safely. This
should get some of the vehicles off the road (It would get mine off the road). This means
dedicated bike trails that are separated from the vehicular traffic by physical barriers (or
by lines of parked cars), and to have the cycling infrastructure paved. Gravel, stone dust,
potholes and other rough surfaces are not cycle-friendly.
I would love to see increased funding for the local arts scene.
I appreciate the efforts that Council has made in recent years to bring us out of the
deficit, it's important to have quality services and a balanced budget, while maintaining
reasonable tax rates. Reading through the budget, I think it makes sense to leave the
money in the DPPCC budget to cover the Kiwanis park deficit and to ease 2018 budget
stress. I also think that addressing the WSIB changes should be a priority, I think that
ensuring tax increases are commensurate with the rest of Waterloo region and using
those extra funds to help build that fund would be more beneficial than working to have
the lowest tax increase of the region, though I appreciate the efforts made to minimize
the impact on my wallet.
Be cautious with rising property taxes. While inflation in rising at a steady rate, wages
are not always following suit. Rising storm / water fees are rising at 13% and that is after
already taking it out of property taxes (which didn't go down) so was already a +/-9% tax
hike when implemented.What is the city doing to potentially CUT spending instead of
always increasing?
Considering the enormous amount of money spent on the LRT system (that the public
voted down), I would like to see careful consideration given to putting any more dollars
toward it with transparency on why and where the dollars are being spent.
Rather than looking at a wishlist and then deciding what will be included, please budget
more like a taxpayer. Start with how much money is coming in, then decide what an
acceptable tax increase would be give the inflation rate, local average wage increases
and any critical needs. Given the amount of money you have, decided what you can
afford to offer. This is the way I must budget. While there are items I might really want,
if I don't have the money this year, it doesn't make it into the final budget. Also don't
pick up the slack when the upper levels of government make cutbacks or download
services. While we may hate to see these cuts, it is not the city's responsibility to fund
items beyond its mandate (i.e. picking up social service costs no longer provincially
funded. As regards the fire budget, limit any budget increases to the rate of inflation.
Have this service finds any additional funds from within their existing budgets for a few
FINAL - 97
CITY OF KITCHENER
2017 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER
years. Their will most assuredly be a hue and cry from both taxpayers and the fire
service. Use this as an opportunity to redirection focus to the cause of these problems...
the province. The taxpayers can only suck it up for so long.
I am concerned about the impact of increases in property taxes and utility rates on
seniors and vulnerable populations. I would support increases in property taxes being
adjusted for income levels so that those of us who make more, pay more. perhaps more
tax rebates for seniors/lower income.home values are not always a great indication of
income level. property values are also increasing rapidly while income is stagnant for
many. home ownership is also a big step forward in achieving financial security - higher
taxes and utility rates will make it difficult for first time home buyers. Im not worried
about me but I do worry about my neighbours. I hope council will consider utility
rebates for seniors and vulnerable populations.
Keep on taxing. I'll just plant more money trees.
Why does it feel like fire budget is ever increasing and outpacing inflation? Why do
firefighters obtain better-than-inflation rates for increased wages and enviable hours of
work? In addition: what feedback does the city have towards the region's police budget
that is outpacing inflation at an unsustainable rate?
FINAL - 98