The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFCS - Budget Day Package 2010í ì ë ê é è ç ïð Percent ïï ïî October September August July June May April March February January 2009 December November October September August July June May April March February January 2008 City’s Yields ïí ïì ïë ïê ïé ïè ïç 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 Percentage Increase îð îï îî îí îì îë îê îé îè îç FTE/1,000 Population FTE's íð íï íî íí íì íë íê íé íè íç ìð ìï ìî ìí ìì ìë ìê ìé ìè ìç ëð ëï ëî ëí ëì ëë ëê ëé ëè ëç êð êï êî êí êì êë êê êé êè êç éð CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #28 –Capital Closeouts and Capital Account Balances Listing FUND: Capital DEPARTMENT: ALL PREPARER: Saleh Saleh, Senior Financial Analyst BACKGROUND: At the November 23, 2009 Finance and Corporate Services committee meeting, Council had requested that staff provide a listing of capital closeouts and capital account balances. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: Capital Closeouts An extensive review of existing Capital account balances for each department was undertaken as part of the budget control initiative. Each department provided recommendations for closeouts and options to postpone capital projects or fund them differently. Departments were able to achieve approximately $13 M in capital closeouts throughthis process. Approximately $3.5M of closeouts was transferred to the tax based operating fund to help mitigate the operating deficit for 2009. A detailed breakdown of the $13 M in closeouts is attached in Appendix A with a summary of closeouts by funding source shown below: TOTAL FUNDING SOURCECLOSEOUTS 3,473,270 Capital out of Current (CC) Development Charges2,387,227 Water Enterprise1,677,279 Sewer Enterprise5,028,665 Reserves453,458 13,019,898 Grand Total Capital Account Balance Listing A listing of capital account balances as at December 10, 2009 is provided in Appendix B. The current total unexpended capital balance is $69,001,669with encumbrances of $52,337,445 against that amount, for a net unexpended balance of $16,664,224. Given the large number of capital projects currently underway, and the fact that many of the identified balances are supported by detailed projections, it will be difficult to provide detailed explanations for specific balances on final budget day unless Council members identify projects of interest to staff in advance of the meeting so that the relevant staff and content are available." FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION: For information. 2010-01-08 éï éî éí éì éë éê éé éè éç èð èï èî èí èì èë èê èé èè èç çð çï çî çí çì çë çê çé çè çç ïðð ïðï ïðî ïðí ïðì ïðë ïðê ïðé ïðè ïðç ïïð ïïï ïïî CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #29-ENHANCEMENTS TO TAX/UTILITY SYSTEM (CIS) FUND: CAPITAL DEPARTMENT: FINANCIAL SERVICES, REVENUE DIVISION PREPARER: JOYCE V. EVANS, DIRECTOR OF REVENUE BACKGROUND: Council directed staff to bring back an issues paper in respect to the capital budget for enhancements to tax/utility system (CIS). RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: The tax/utility customer information system (CIS) is a significant system for the City of Kitchener. The CIS system provides an integrated data base of the City’s customer, utility, tax and property assessment information. The system also tracks utilities equipment and appliances. Annually approximately $330 million in City, Region and Education tax revenue and $165 million in water, sewer and gas utility revenue is billed and collected utilizing this system. A funding formula is used to fund CIScapital costs, which is a reflection of the complexity of programming in each functional area as well as the volume of transactions flowing through the system. A sample of the impact of a reduction of $100,000 in CIS budget is shown below: Funding Source Funding Reduction Percentage Funding Current$ 16,000 16% Gas$ 59,000 59% Water$ 13,000 13% Sanitary Sewer $ 13,000 13% Total Reduction $100,000100% Since the funding of this project from current is 16% the effective reduction to the property tax base is minimal, although the impact on the system would be significant. The costs in the 2010 – 2019 capital forecast for this system are made up of 90% staffing and 10% equipment and miscellaneous costs. The cost of administering this system is approximately 0.33% of the revenue generated by the system on an annual basis. Currently a complete review of CIS is being undertaken by Prior and Prior with the results to be available to Council by mid year 2010. Staff recommends that no action be taken at this point in time pending the results of the CIS review. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION: For information 2010-01-08 ïïí CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #30 – FIRE FLEET FUND: CAPITAL DEPARTMENT: FINANCIAL SERVICES PREPARER: Saleh Saleh, Senior Financial Analyst BACKGROUND: At the November 23, 2009 Finance and Corporate Services meeting, Council requested staff to provide information on the fire fleet capital projections and comment on the capital costs for fire vehicles. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: The fire fleet capital fund is used to fund purchases of fire vehicles and equipment replacements. Staff undertake an extensive review of vehicle conditions every year to ensure appropriate life cycles and current market values are being reflected in the projections. Based on this analysis, during the 2009 Budget deliberations, capital funding for Fire fleet was reduced by an average of $500,000 annually. The current average price of vehicles (2009 dollars) range from $685,000 for a Special Operations Unit to $1,045,000 for an Aerial. As most of the vehicles are purchased in US Dollars and given the fluctuations in the US Dollar rate when compared to the Canadian Dollar, Staff feel that the balance forecasted in this fund is conservative over the next 10 years. The projections for the fund are shown in the table below. ß ±º îððç Projected îððçîðïðîðïïîðïîîðïíîðïìîðïëîðïêîðïéîðïèîðïç Beginning Balance3,0991,9037871,3541311,5881,2832,7982,3332,645703 Capital Contribution (CC) 1,30006006001,5001,8001,5001,5001,5001,5001,500 Interest Revenue12266523642701001251218271 Total Revenue4,5211,9691,4391,9901,6733,4582,8834,4233,9544,2272,274 Less Purchases:2,6181,182851,859852,175852,0901,3093,52485 Ending Balance1,9037871,3541311,5881,2832,7982,3332,6457032,189 Over the next 10 years, the fund is projected to have a balance as low as $131,000 in 2012to a balance as high as $2.8M in 2015. Staff will continue to monitor this fund on a yearly basis to find efficiencies and savings. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION: None 2010-01-11 ïïì CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #31- Street Lighting Capital and Alternative Street Lights FUND: Capital DEPARTMENT: DTS – Engineering – Transportation Planning PREPARER: John McBride – Director Transportation Planning BACKGROUND: At the Finance Committee meeting of Nov 16, 2009 during the review of the 2010 Capital Budget, two questions were asked requiring further information. The first was in reference to the $153,000 line item for group lamp replacement and the other was on alternate lighting technologies. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: The City has approximately 18,000 high pressure sodium (HPS) street lights in operation. Each light lasts approximately five years and then must be replaced. A program has been in place for a number of years to replace approximately 20% of the street lights on an annual basis. This work is tendered by KW Hydro on the City’s behalf and includes lamp replacement as well as ballasts and photocells when required. The City, in conjunction with KW Hydro,has just recently completed a pilot program on the use of LED and induction street lights. The review considered not only the photometric properties of the lights but also the power consumption, equipment cost, system maintenance, public acceptance and a life cycle cost analysis. The findings indicate that LED lights can provide an appropriate level of light and save energy costs, but the capital purchase cost is still toogreat to justify a large scale adoption of them for new installation or as a replacement for existing lights. The lack of standardization in design and performance between manufacturers is also a concern. Selective use will be considered as an alternative to decorative metal halide lights in the Downtown. We expect that this technology will mature and costs will fall over the next few years and will be monitoring new products on an annual basis and will bring forward recommendations when appropriate. It is staffs intent to present the results of this pilot program to an upcoming Environmental Committee meeting. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of the group relamping of the HPS lights has been included in the Capital Budget. There are no further costs associated with LED lighting at this time. RECOMMENDATION: For information only. 2010-01-11 ïïë CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #32 - Equipment Reserve Fund FUND: Reserve Fund DEPARTMENT: Financial Services PREPARER: Michelle Fardy, Financial Analyst BACKGROUND: Council requested an analysis of the Equipment Reserve, includingfunding sources and an explanation of what comprises additions and upgrades. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: The purpose of the equipment reserve fund is to fund equipment purchases. To minimize fluctuations to the operating budget, depreciation to fund replacements has been kept at the 2009 level, and funding for upgrades and additions generally increases at 2% per year. The projection below includes a partial allocation for the $11 million in equipment that is fully depreciated, but where replacement is deferred because the equipment is in good working condition. Council policy is that the reserve be maintained at an amount equal to the accumulated depreciation of City Fleet, which is approximately $22 million. While this policy may need to be revisited as part of a review of reserve fund balances, the current reserve balance is well below this amount. Additionally, since COK reserve balances as a whole appear underfunded relative to other municipalities, reductions in funding tothe equipment reserve to support operating, will further increase this disparity. Equipment Reserve ProjectionActualBudgetProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjected 501700220082009200920102011201220132014 2,224,3872,274,0342,274,0342,379,0942,426,6762,475,2092,524,7142,575,208 Depreciation \Auction Revenue 324,470267,567241,076173,927111,025101,705108,214124,461 Investment Income Other Contribution from Capital Fund151,660154,000154,682157,000161,000161,000164,000168,000 Contribution from Gas109,373112,000111,625113,000115,000117,000119,000120,000 Contribution from Water54,68755,18355,81256,00057,00058,00059,00060,000 Contribution from Sewer54,68755,18355,81256,00057,00058,00059,00060,000 Contribution from Dev Charges290,351296,000296,126303,000309,000315,000321,000328,000 660,758672,366674,057685,000699,000709,000722,000736,000 3,209,6153,213,9673,189,1673,238,0213,236,7013,285,9143,354,9283,435,669 Total Funding to the Reserve Expenses Permit System100,000 Equipment Replacement current year917,5933,068,0002,079,4222,877,2442,462,5192,742,1281,529,1212,229,289 Equipment Approved Prior Year 2,226,014 2,802,4323,087,778 Contribution to City Operating 100,000 100,000100,000100,000100,000100,000100,000 Snow Melter/Tractor Contingency83,014213,900163,000150,000158,076172,556112,556148,264 * Equipment Upgrades/New Equip 476,4331,210,0001,320,0001,082,500699,000709,000722,000736,000 7,394,3323,803,054 3,662,422 7,297,522 3,419,595 3,723,684 2,463,677 3,213,553 Equipment Replacement Deferred 1,000,0001,000,0001,000,0001,000,000 Opening Balance9,323,4898,730,0518,730,0518,256,7964,197,2953,014,4011,576,6311,467,882 Ending Balance 8,730,0514,549,6858,256,7964,197,2953,014,4011,576,6311,467,882689,997 2010-01-08 ïïê * 2010 Additions and Upgrades Additions Cube van50,000 Ice Resurfacer105,000 Off Road Utility Work Machine80,000 Crew Cab58,000 Out Front Tri-Deck Mower65,000 Utility Vehicle24,000 Tractor Mower Bobcat 20,000 Municipal Tractor (3)450,000 852,000 Upgrades Single Axle to Tandem Dump (3)75,000 Single Cabs to Crew Cabs (3)26,000 Brine System - Steel to Stainless Steel (1)30,000 Turf Tractor to Year-Round Tractor (2)66,000 Asphalt Hot-Box to Dump (1)10,000 Other (7)23,500 230,500 1,082,500 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Reserve projections show funding sources, expenditures, and projected balances. RECOMMENDATION: For information. 2010-01-08 ïïé CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #33– Impact of Reduction to Specific Facilities Management Capital Budget Lines FUND: CAPITAL FUND DEPARTMENT: CORPORATE SERVICES – FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PREPARER: CYNTHIA FLETCHER – Director, Facilities Management BACKGROUND: s part of the November 23, 2009 Capital Budget review, Council requested an impact analysis of A reducing the Facilities Management Capital Budget by $50,000 per year. Facilities Management staff met to analyze budget lines and met with CSD staff to review the impact of budget reductions in these areas. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: After much review, we determined that a reduction of the same budget lines consistently each year would have significant impact on our ability to maintain our targeted replacement cycles for major building components and program related upgrades. Rather than targeting the same budget lines consistently across the 10 year period, we reviewedthe adjustment of different budget lines annually. The reduction of $500,000 will have an impact on our ability to maintain targeted replacement cycles. Deferring these replacement cycleswill move us from a proactive/preventative mode to a reactive mode. Doing so does increase the risk that building components/systems may fail prior to being replaced, which could lead to increased cost, potential down-time/temporary closures, potential damage to other building components andloss of credibility Eg: Our standard roofing assembly has a life cycle projection of 20 years. In the current budget projection, we would not attain a 20 year cycle until 2016 when our funding reaches the $750,000/year level. We are currently replacing on approximately a 28 year cycle now. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The following table outlines the impact of a reduction of $50,000 per year from 2010 to 2019 for a total reduction of $500,000 to the overall Facilities Management Capital Budget: FundinExisting 2010201120122013201420152016201720182019Total Adjusted Project Name gForecastAdj Adj Adj Adj Adj Adj Adj Adj Adj Adj Adj Forecast ROOF - GENERAL PROVISION C/C 5,415 (15) (10) (10) (15) (50) 5,365 CITY HALL RENOS/GENER AL PROVISION C/C 1,673 (10) (10) (10) (10) (40) 1,633 MARKET - MTCE - DT C/C 1,234 (10) (10) (10) (10) (40) 1,194 CITY HALL SIGNAGE C/C 50 (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (25) 25 AUDITORIUM - MTCE C/C 1,869 (5) (5) 1,864 PARKS GENERAL - MTCEC/C 509 (5) (5) 504 OUTDOOR FOUNTAINS C/C 319 (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (50) 269 2010-01-08 ïïè VICTORIA PARK PAVILION MTCEC/C 235 (10) (5) (15) 220 K-W JUDO & GYMNASTICS CLUB C/C 240 (5) (5) (5) (15) 225 COMMUNITY CENTRES - MAINTENANCE C/C 2,389 (25) (25) 2,364 DEHUMIDIFIER S FOR ARENAS C/C 175 (10) (5) (10) (25) 150 REPLACEMEN TS BLDG EXTERIOR COMPC/C 595 (10) (10) 585 ACTIVA TWIN PADS C/C 617 (5) (5) (5) (5) (4) (5) (5) (34) 583 BREITHAUPT CTR - MAINTENANCE C/C 557 (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (40) 517 AQUATICS - MAINTENANCE C/C 1,002 (15) (5) (6) (26) 976 CITY HALL COMPLEX - MTCE C/C 2,068 (5) (10) (10) (10) (10) (45) 2,023 CITY HALL PARKING GARAGE - MTCEC/C 477 (5) (10) (15) 462 FIRE STATIONS - MTCE C/C 512 (5) (5) (5) (15) 497 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT TOOLS C/C 274 (10) (10) 264 BUDD PARK SOCCER FACILITY - MTCEC/C 154 (5) (5) (10) 144 20,364 (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (500) 19,864 ALL OTHER PROJECTs (NO ADJUSTMENT)C/C 19,924 0 19,924 ALL OTHER PROJECTs (NO ALL ADJUSTMENT)Other 35,678 0 35,678 55,602 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,602 TOTALS 75,966 (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (50) (500) 75,466 RECOMMENDATION: For Information. 2010-01-08 ïïç CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: # 34 - Automated External Defibrillator Units for City Facilities FUND: Capital DEPARTMENT: Community Services - Community Programs and Services – Aquatics and Athletics PREPARER: Denise Keelan, Manager of Aquatics and Athletics) BACKGROUND: In 2007 the City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo Emergency Medical System (EMS), developed a partnership to supply and maintain AED units in City of Kitchener facilities. The Heart and Stroke Foundation provided funding to place 22 of these units in high priority locations in 2007 and 2008. Three additional units were purchased for specific sites through the operating budget. Kitchener currently has 25 units throughout 23 facilities city wide. Region of Waterloo EMS continues to workin partnership with numerous agencies and funding sources to fulfill the goal of having AED units placed across the region in all public facilities. It is expected that for the 2010 year a substantial number of units will again be donated to our regional EMS for distribution. A request has been sent to the Region, by the City of Kitchener, for 13 units to be used for the balance of our Kitchener facilities. The planned facilities that will receive AED units this year include all Community Centres, the KW Gymnastics Judo Facility, and the Central Maintenance Facility. The attached list shows all locations of our current units and the anticipated listing for 2010. It is expected that theroll out of the AED units will begin early in 2010. Usage Statistics: 2008 - Kitchener Memorial Auditorium - unit deployed, pads applied, Defib upon EMS arrival. 2008 - City Hall-Security - pads were opened but not placed on patient. 2009 - City Hall - pads were opened but not placed on patient. 2009 - Lion's Arena - chest pain patient, AED brought to patient's side. Region wide in 2008 / 2009 EMS has experienced 3 other applications out of 140 unitsin the system. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Cost per unit is approximately $2,000. As in previous years, staff is looking to work in partnership with the Regional EMS to have donated AED units distributed to our remaining facilities and do not anticipate any additional capital costs associated with this. City budgets currently pay for preventative maintenance on each unit each year. Units are replaced at no charge if needed, based on our agreement and the unit warranty. RECOMMENDATION: For information purposes. 2010-01-11 ïîð City of Kitchener Facility Listing for Automated External Defibrillator units December 1, 2009 Facility Number ofPublic Access Funding source units Heart and Stroke Kitchener Memorial Auditorium 2 PAD Heart and Stroke Breithaupt Community Centre 1 PAD Lyle Hallman Pool 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Forest Heights Pool 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Kitchener City Hall 1 City Security City budget operated Heart and Stroke Kitchener Farmers Market 1 PAD Rockway Senior Centre 1PADHeart and Stroke Downtown Community Centre 1 PAD City Budget Special Events1 Staff operated Enterprise Budget Grand River Arena 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Don McLaren Arena 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Heart and Stroke Queensmount Arena 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Lions Arena 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Rockway Golf Course 1 PAD Doon Valley Golf Course 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Activa Sports Complex2 PAD Heart and Stroke Heart and Stroke Sportsworld Arena1 PAD Heart and Stroke Kiwanis Park1 PAD Cameron Heights Pool 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Idlewood Pool 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Wilson Pool 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Heart and Stroke Budd Park Soccer Facility 1 PAD Heart and Stroke Harry Class Pool 1 PAD Total Currently Installed 25 2010 Planned Facilities Stanley Park Community Centre 1 PAD TBD Chandler Mowat CC 1 PAD TBD Doon Pioneer Park CC 1 PAD TBD Kingsdale CC 1 PAD TBD Victoria Hills CC 1 PAD TBD Centreville Chicopee CC 1 PAD TBD Country Hills CC 1 PAD TBD Forest Heights CC 1 PAD TBD Williamsburg CC 1 PAD TBD Mill Courtland CC 1 PAD TBD Bridgeport CC 1 PAD TBD KW Gymnastic Judo Centre 1 PAD TBD Consolidated Maintenance Facility 1 PAD TBD Total for installation in 2010 13 2010-01-11 ïîï October 24, 2008 CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #35 - Victoria Park Funding FUND: Capital DEPARTMENT: Community Services - Operations PREPARER: Jim Witmer, Director of Operations BACKGROUND: In 2002 the Community Services Department initiated a comprehensive public process to develop a guide for the immediate and long term future of Victoria Park which reflected the requirements of the citizens of Kitchener and develop a practical strategy for its realization. The first series of public meetings resulted in a Foundations Plan which summarized the primary goals for Victoria Park. This included broad categories such as: Lake and Water Quality Walkways and Bridges Public Safety Traffic and Parking Landscape Features and Buildings Special Events The Victoria Park Strategic Plan was then developed through additional public meetings and Foundations Plan goals were translated into specific capital projects which could be implemented over a ten year period. Council subsequently approved a ten year capital forecast for the period 2004 to 2013 utilizing the Downtown Investment Fund which has provided 270k annually. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: There is still $1,080,000 of capital work yet to be completed in the remaining 2010-2013 time period. This work includes landform grading’lighting upgrades, tree planting, walkways, lake edge improvements, bridge abutment reconstruction, an upper lake pedestrian bridge, major plantings and restorations, park furniture, play structure reconstruction, picnic shelter replacements/upgrades etc. The lake edge improvements, boathouse landscape improvements, island bridge piers and abutment reconstruction and the upper lake pedestrian bridge are affected by proposed works as outlined in the Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Victoria Lake Improvements (July 2009). The value of these works are estimated to be $600,000, however a more refined cost estimate will be determined once the final design of the lake and rehabilitation project is confirmed. In order to optimize construction costs and minimize disruption to the park the timing of these works would be linked to the overall lake rehabilitation project. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: $600,000 of capital work be deferred to align with the timing of the Victoria Lake rehabilitation project. RECOMMENDATION: For information ïîî CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #36 – Parks Buildings General Provision FUND: Capital DEPARTMENT: Community Services - Operations PREPARER: Pauline Houston, General Manager, Community Services BACKGROUND: The Parks General Provision account of $26,000 per year is currently used to address site needs at the Chandler Operations Centre that are not currently part of Facilities Management’s responsibility for the main building. Examples of costs that are funded from this allowance include parking lot resurfacing, fencing, major repairs to outbuildings such as the greenhouse, etc. When this operation moves over to the Consolidated Maintenance Facility, these funds will be consolidated with the General Provision account in Facilities Management, which currently does not include any allowance for site improvements, such as the ones mentioned above. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A RECOMMENDATION: For information purposes. 2010-01-11 ïîí CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #37 – Implications of Increasing Funding Related to Parks Master Plan FUND: Capital DEPARTMENT: Community Services - Operations PREPARER: Pauline Houston, General Manager, Community Services and Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager, DTS BACKGROUND: On October 26, 2009, an update and presentation on the Parks Master Plan was provided to the Community Services Committee. Five central themes (natural areas, trails, active parks, neighbourhood parks and community engagement) through extensive community consultation were considered. Strategic directions fashioned from each of the five central themes aided in developing the “Investing in the Health of the Community” chart which recommendedcapital budget increases for the 5 key line items in the ten year forecast. On November 23, 2009, the Capital Forecast 2010-2019 was presented at Finance & Corporate Services Committee. Staff was asked to report back on the implications of increasing funding related to Parks Master Plan. In response to that request, Staff is recommending that consideration be given to increasing Parks funding to the Parks Master Plan level for the 2010 budget year (i.e. an increase of $691,000) for three priority areas: Community Trail Development $218,000 o General Park Development $248,000 o Park Rehabilitation $225,000 o In addition, that the “Parks Master Plan” recommended funding levels for 2011 and beyond would be considered during the 2011-2019 budget forecast. Funding for 2010 would be derived from the following sources: Environmental Remediation General Provision $400,000 o Traffic Calming $130,000 o Road Resurfacing $161,000 o It should be noted that as part of council’s deliberations over the city’s 10 year capital forecast the city has identified a plan to ramp up spending on these important community amenities by over $5 million. This new funding would increase the city's investments in parks, trails, naturalized areas and sportsfields to $37 million over the next ten years. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: Recommended Capital Budget Levels for 2010: LINE ITEM Capital Forecast 2009-2017 Parks Master Plan Existing 2010 BudgetProposed 2010 Budget Community Trail Development $331,000 $549,000 * General Park Development $401,000 $649,000 * Park Rehabilitation Nil$225,000 * includes $49,000 each to provide funding for the staffposition transferred to Capital as part of 2010-01-11 ïîì the Operating Budget deliberations. Community Trail Development In 1990 the city completed a Leisure Facilities Strategywhich included a Community Trail Master Plan to guide the phased construction of a continuous trail system. Capital funding for the community trail system in the 20 years following this master plan allowed for the implementation of only a small portion of this vision. Based on the findings of the 2005 Leisure Facilities Master Plan the community trail budget was increased from $115,000 in 2006 to $282,000 in 2009. The Parks Master Plan recommends a level of $549,000 annually. Staff are recommending that this level be applied to the 2010 capital budget; the priorities would include the preparation of a city wide Trails Implementation Strategy, the Huron Natural Area Strasburg Creek trail and bridge crossing, a section of the Balzer Creek trail and the Doon South trail and creek crossing. General Park Development The Parks Master Plan recommends that funding levelsfor General Park Development be increased to $649,000 annually to address both the backlog of park development and the inadequate level of park design standard. Currently, there are 20 parks scheduled for development which were acquired (2001 thru 2009) through the subdivision development process. Two new parks on average are dedicated annually; this annual dedication rate can be extremely variable (1-6 parks). The cost of park development ranges from $90,000 to $225,000 depending on park size. In 2007, funding was increased from $134,000 (1 to 2 parks)to the current level of $352,000 allowing the city to develop 3 to 4 parks annually. At the Parks Master Plan recommended level of $600,000 annually, the city would be able to develop 4-5 parks annually. At this proposed level, the 20 park inventory would be reduced by 3 parks per year assuming 2 new parks are acquired annually. Staff are recommending that the Parks Master Plan proposed level be applied to the 2010 capital budget. Parks scheduled for 2010 include Beaumont (Grand River South), Parkvale (Huron Park), Banffshire (Huron Park), Michael Donnenwerth (Laurentian West) & Country Clair (Grand River South). fter 2010, 15 A parks would remain in inventory not taking into account forany new additions through the subdivision development process. Park Rehabilitation The Parks Master Plan identified that the city has 325 parks, with 31 in the core of the city. Many of these are underserviced and in need of upgrades. Presently park upgrades are limited to playstructure replacements on a 20 year life cycle in order to comply with CSA standards. The estimated cost of a park upgrade on average would be $75,000 to $150,000 (excluding playstructures). The Park Master Plan proposed funding of $225,000 annually would allow the city to rehabilitate 2 or 3 parks per year, phased over a ten year time frame. Staff are recommending that the Parks Master Plan proposed level be applied to the 2010 capital budget. Early in 2010, a strategy-priority list would be developed and may consider 2 or 3 of the following priority parks for 2010: Cherry, Vanier, Argyle, Admiral, Duke and Lakeside. Funding for park rehabilitation for 2011 and beyond would be considered during the 2011-2019 budget forecast. Impacts on Other Capital Priorities: Environmental Remediation General Provision Based on a review of known and anticipated expenditures on this provision over the 10 year forecast, there appears to be capacity to eliminate the 2010 funding allocation, for one year only. 2010-01-11 ïîë Traffic Calming The impacts of eliminating the 2010 funding of $130,000 for this program are: With funds left over from the 2009 program the following projects will be installed: 5 humps on Clark Ave o 4 humps on Dixon/Carwood o 4 humps on Vanier/Traynor o Without the 2010 budgeted funds we will have to delay: 2 raised crosswalks on Laurentian o 2 raised crosswalks on Morgan o 6 humps and 1 raised crosswalk on Upper Canada o 10 humps and 1 raised crosswalk on Pioneer/Bechtel o The main concern is the public and political expectation that this work will be done. Public meetings with these neighbourhoods have already occurred and the anticipated schedule was outlined to them. There may be a backlash if they are delayed. Road Resurfacing Background - As an introduction, roads are assessed and scored for overall condition on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best). The condition target is to maintain a rating 7/10 on city streets. - Currently, 88.8 km of road are scored at a condition of under 3. Roads in this range of condition scores are considered poor in condition, with an estimated remediation cost of $75.8M. To deal with this shortfall in ten years would require $7.58M/year, in twenty years $3.79M/year - If the condition threshold is raised to streets with a condition score under 4, we tally a total 97.1km of road, with an estimated remediation cost of $83.0M. To deal with this shortfall in ten years would require $8.30M/year, in twenty years $4.15M/year - If the condition threshold is raised to the target of 7, we tally 336km of road below this threshold with an estimated remediation cost of $194.0M - which is of course $19.4M/year over ten years and 9.7M/year over 20 years. - The figures given above are "static" figures, meaning that it is a snapshot in time. In reality, it does not take into account that additional streets currently at a higher condition threshold will degrade over the 10 or 20 year timespans mentioned above to below an acceptable score, essentially "clawing back" some of the gains made in those periods of time. Current -The budget as set last week for the Road Resurfacing Program was $2.668M. Of that, $500,000 is being directed to the King Street streetscape project for 2010, leaving $2.168M for the Road Resurfacing program proper. The proposed reduction mentioned below would lower this to $2.007M. - The $2.168M budget figure is expected to purchase us approximately 6.8km of road resurfacing in 2010. The reduction to $2.007M would take that figure down to 6.26km. - Every street planned to be addressed in the 2010, 2.168M budgeted program, is at a condition threshold of below 3 or below. 2010-01-11 ïîê Repercussions - There are always public concerns regarding road condition, and those concerns will grow as the gap between the amount of road resurfaced and the amount that needs to be resurfaced grows wider. - $2M/year for road resurfacing is approximately 1/10th the cost of raising our overall pavement condition to the target of 7 in 20 years. - Generally, poorer overall road condition = more damage claims against the City and the incurrence of greater liability - Generally, poorer overall road condition = greater economic cost to business and motorists - Small to moderate reductions in the road resurfacing program do not only result in a larger number of potholes in the city. It sets back at least one year in time a number of streets that would be resurfaced - worsening the existing backlog - Streets in poor condition risk a more serious failure during winter and spring thaw months that is more difficult and expensive to address. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The overall impact to the capital forecast for 2010 remains the same with a change in project priority as outlined above. RECOMMENDATION: That funding be increased for Parks and Trails to the Parks Master Plan level for the 2010 budget year (i.e. an increase of $691,000) for three priority areas: Community Trail Development $218,000 o General Park Development $248,000 o Park Rehabilitation $225,000 o In addition, that the “Parks Master Plan” recommended funding levels for 2011 and beyond would be considered during the 2011-2019 budget forecast. Funding for 2010 would be derived from the following sources: Environmental Remediation General Provision $400,000 o Traffic Calming $130,000 o Road Resurfacing $161,000 o 2010-01-11 ïîé CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #38 - WILLIAMSBURG PHASE II DEVELOPMENT FUND: CAPITAL DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES ENTERPRISE DIVISION, CEMETERIES PREPARER: KIM KUGLER, INTERIM DIRECTOR ENTERPRISE BACKGROUND: Williamsburg Cemetery is a 51 acre parcel of land of which approximately 21 acres have been developed. The balance of the property remains undeveloped. In 2006, council approved the cemetery strategic plan. This plan outlined several recommendations. Four of these recommendations have had and continue to incur capital budget implications. They are as follows: That the city remain in the cemetery business That the city initiate a design and business plan proposal for phase II of Williamsburg cemetery – completed in 2009 That the city develop a business plan for the purchase of lands for future cemetery development – Capital Budget Forecast 2010 That the city determine the feasibility of a mausoleum development for Williamsburg Cemetery – completed in 2009 RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: In order to achieve the recommendation, ‘that the city remains in the cemetery business’, the following would need to occur; 1. Phase II development – time lines have been developed within the 2009 Cemetery Business Plan suggesting that the City of Kitchener needs to have an additional supply of developed cemetery lands by 2016. Should this not occur by 2016, inventory will be exhausted. 2. Although funding is not available to meet this time line as lots will not be able to be sold by 2016, funding has been identified in the 2010 Capital Forecast, for the completion of zoning, geotechnical/hydrological surveys and overall site design and engineering. In providing this funding, the city is in essence, mitigating some of the risk associated with not moving forward with full development. With the completion of the zoning approvals, surveys and overall site design, staff will be in a more favourable position to create small scale development of new cemetery lands. This is an important consideration since cemetery lands in the region are not adequate to meet future needs and given the uncertainty of forecast demand. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2010 capital costs to undertake the studies and design work are approximately as follows: Topological/feature/survey $15,000.00 Geotech/hydrological studies $30,000.00 Overall site design/engineering $200,000.00 RECOMMENDATION: For information only. 2010-01-11 ïîè CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #39 – AUTOMATED METER READING (AMR) FUND: CAPITAL DEPARTMENT: FINANCIAL SERVICES - UTILITIES WALTER J. MALCOLM, DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES PREPARER: BACKGROUND: During the budget review process, Council requested the following information in regard to Automated Meter Reading (AMR): Available AMR technologies Companies involved in the provision of AMR Current AMR deployment 2010 AMR Pilot Plan for City of Kitchener REPORT: Available AMR Technologies: Handheld In handheld AMR, a meter reader carries a handheld computer with a built-in or attached receiver/transceiver (radio frequency or touch) to collect meter readings from an AMR capable meter. This is sometimes referred to as "walk-by" meter reading since the meter reader walks by the locations where meters are installed as they go through their meter reading route. Mobile Mobile or "drive-by" meter reading is where a reading device is installed in a vehicle. The meter reader drives the vehicle while the reading device automatically collects the meter readings. Often for mobile meter reading the reading equipment includes navigational and mapping features provided by GPS and mapping software. With mobile meter reading, the reader does not normally have to read the meters in any particular route order, but just drives the service area until all meters are read. Components often consist of a laptop or proprietary computer, software, RF receiver/transceiver, and external vehicle antennas. Fixed network Fixed Network AMR is a method where a network is permanently installed to capture meter readings. This method can consist of a series of antennas, towers, collectors, repeaters, or other permanently installed infrastructure to collect transmissions of meter readings from AMR capable meters and get the data to a central computer without a person in the field to collect it. There are several types of network topologies in use to get the meter data back to a central computer. A star network is the most common, where a meter transmits its data to a central collector or repeater. Some systems use only collectors which receive and store data for processing. Others also use a repeater which forwards a reading from a more remote area back to a main collector without actually storing it. A repeater may be forwarded by RF signal or sometimes is converted to a wired network such as telephone or IP network to get the data back to a collector. 2010-01-14 ïîç Some fixed network systems are also capable of being installed as a hybrid AMR system where mobile and fixed network are intermixed by design. In a hybrid system, part of the system is read by fixed network, and parts may beread by mobile or other technology, or both. Utilities with low density rural areas may not cost justify thefixed network infrastructure for parts of their service area, using it only for higher density zones or commercial accounts. Some hybrid networks allow reading of a meter by both methods concurrently as a source of redundancy. In the event of a failure of the network due a natural disaster, sabotage, power failure, or other network interruption, the mobile reading system is available in their disaster recovery plan as an alternative means of data collection to the fixed network. Companies involved in the provision of AMR: Badger: Badger Meter, Inc. was established over 100 years ago in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where its Corporate Headquarters are located. Badger Meter is a Water Meter manufacturer that over the last 20 years has become involved in the AMR and now AMI Water market. Badger’s Water AMR/AMI market offerings include walk-by, drive-by, hybrid and fixed-base meter reading solutions. Datamatic: Datamatic supplies handhelds and meter reading software. They are based in Plano, Texas, were established in 1980 and do not appear to have any Canadian affiliates. With the onset of utomated Meter Reading (AMR), Datamatic entered the market with their Radio Frequency A (RF), multi-utility (Water, Gas, and Electric) Walk-by and Drive-by product which wasbranded under the name FireFly. Hersey: Hersey is another water meter manufacturer and is a significantly smaller player in the water meter and AMR industry. Over the years Hersey has released various AMR solutions and has now settled on their own Drive-by solution that goes by the name Hot Rod. This product line includes reading software and a mobile collection device known as the Street Machine. This system is compatible with Hersey meters and other manufacturer’s encoded register meters. There is no multi-utility (Electric, Gas) functionality within the Hot Rod system. Hersey has had a long association with Itron and has the distinction of being the first water meter to interface with Itron’s Automated Meter Reading (AMR) System. Hersey does not have an in-house Fixed Network system and promotes Itron’s Water SaveSource as the Fixed Network solution of choice to the market. Itron : Itron, Inc. was established in 1977 and now makes its Corporate Headquarters in Spokane, Washington. For most of its history Itron was a supplier of meter-neutral meter reading systems whether walk or drive-by. In the last 10 years however, Itron through acquisition has grown to include water, gas and electric meter manufacturing capability. This has not diminished Itron’s commitment to open-architected metering systems featuring universal compatibility. In the Water market Itron presents walk-by, drive-by and fixed-base meter reading options. 2010-01-14 ïíð Master Meter: Master Meter’s corporate headquarters is in Mansfield, Texas. They are a long-time water meter manufacturer with their primary customer base located across the southern half of the United States. They, like most water meter manufacturers, have had their own AMR (Dialog 3G) system for many years. They have now added a Fixed-base AMI system (FixedLinx) to their product offering. Neptune: Neptune was founded in 1964 and is headquartered in Tallahassee, Alabama. They are active in the Canadian market and operate a Canadian office in Mississauga, Ontario. Neptune, like Badger, is a long-time water meter manufacturer that has entered into the AMR/AMI technology space. Neptune’s technology solutions for the Water market are branded under the name ARB® (Automatic Reading and Billing) and include Walk-by, Drive-by, Hybrid and Fixed-Base data collection solutions. Sensus: Sensus’ history has been in the manufacture of water meters. Over the last 25+ years they have also focused on the development of remote reading technology, for water, gas and electric utilities. The company has locations across the United States and Mexico and is represented in southern and eastern Ontario Water market by Corix Water Products. Sensus provides a full-line of water products to the market, from meters to various technology solutions. They are also active in the Electric and Gas markets. In each of these markets, Sensus offers multiple data collection alternatives to their customers. These would include Walk-by, Drive-by, Fixed-Base and now in the Water industry a migratable technology that enables Water utilities to implement Drive-by technology and migrate to Fixed-base reading. Sensus’ Walk-by and Drive-by solutions for those water utilities that will not be migrating to Fixed Network AMI, utilizes handheld and mobile meter reading devices that read the company’s Meter Transceiver Unit (MXU). Tamper, Leak detection and other functionality are available in this platform. Current AMR deployment: Electricity Market In order to create a conservation culture in Ontario and become a leader in energy efficiency, the Ontario government introduced legislation on November 3, 2005 to start the process of getting “smart meters” into every home and small business in the province by 2010. Ontario’s electricity distribution companies are mandated to ensure that “smart meters” and the necessary communications network are deployed by the end of 2010. Locally, Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro along with Waterloo North Hydro and Cambridge-North Dumfries Hydro are deploying “smart meters” utilizing the Sensus FlexNet AMI system. 2010-01-14 ïíï Municipal – Water Over the past twelve (12) months, there have been market movements emerging to suggest that smart metering is a technology which municipalities are considering for the water industry. In 2009, the City of Toronto awarded a request for proposal under the “Water Meter Replacement and Automated Meter Reading System” project. The agreement was signed December 2009 with the successful vendor and the installation of the water meters and an automated meter reading system will begin early 2010. The program will be implemented on a ward-by-ward basis beginning with residents who are currently on a flat-rate system. It is expected to take six (6) years to complete the city-wide replacement of 465,000 meters. Other municipalities such as Halton Region, Norfolk County, Brant County, are investigating the implementation of an AMR water meter project. The municipalities are exploring the benefits of potentially utilizing the Advanced Metering Infrastructure currently being deployed by electric utilities. City of Kitchener 2010 Pilot Program: In 2009, staff met with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro (KWH)to discuss their Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) deployment within their service territory and the feasibility of conducting a pilot program utilizing their AMI network. KWH, during negotiations with their selected vendor, ensured that the infrastructure would be capable of handling the AMR for water and gas meters within the City of Kitchener. In October 2009, staff met with KWH and their vendor, Sensus, to discuss a water meter pilot program utilizing Sensus FlexNet AMI system installed for KWH. The pilot program would be a turnkey solution whereby Sensus, through Corix Water Products, would install and configure the water meters for the City. Sensus would allow the City of Kitchener to utilize their computer interface system to receive, store and transmit data from the water meters installed. The pilot program will provide the City of Kitchener the opportunity to work with an AMR solution to determine the feasibility and operation of the system. IT and Revenue staff would have an opportunity to look at the data stream and determine the requirements of inputting the meter reads electronically into our current CIS. The pilot program would utilize a group of water meters scheduled to be replaced in 2010. pilot program utilizing A MR technology for gas meters is not being considered at this time. Sensus is awaiting A accreditation from Measurement Canada in regard to retrofitting gas meters with an approved AMR device. Accreditation from Measurement Canada is expected to be received in 2010.As a gas meter would only be another data point, a pilot program utilizing AMR technology for water meters will provide the required information to analyze the feasibility and operation of the AMR system. Key benefits of AMR are as follows: Improved meter reading efficiency: Centralized monitoring increases frequency and accuracy of meter reads plus lowers operational expenses. Faster leak detection: Faster identification of a leak can reduce water loss and potential damage Improved billing accuracy: Eliminates estimated meter reading, improving revenue collection and avoiding unpleasant bill surprises for customers Improved customer service: Customer portals into the usage data allow customer monitoring of daily usage and consumption trends, encouraging water use awareness and conservation. 2010-01-14 ïíî FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Funding for an automated water meter reading pilot program would be through the existing budget for water meter replacements in 2010. The funding for the pilot program would not exceed $40,000. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Kitchener Utilities staff be directed to commence an automated water meter reading pilot program in 2010 utilizing KWH’s current AMI network and to report back to Council on the feasibility and operation of AMR technology for water and gas metersupon the completion of the pilot program. 2010-01-14 ïíí CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #40 –CITS Capital Expenditures History FUND: CAPITAL DEPARTMENT: Boards PREPARER: Saleh Saleh, Senior Financial Analyst BACKGROUND: At the November 23, 2009 Finance and Corporate Services committee meeting, Council had requested the Centre in the Square staff to provide historical capital expenditure data for the last 20 years. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: The table below lists the capital expenditure amounts and the City’s contribution from 1998 to 2008 for the Centre in the Square. CAPITALCOK EAREXPENDITUREGRANT Y 1988221,01380,000 1989163,00350,000 1990566,03665,000 199175,66861,250 1992290,07574,000 1993127,27684,000 19941,720,349108,000 1995340,490208,000 1996248,053110,160 1997283,376159,363 19981,178,187148,500 1999608,559100,470 2000292,200102,479 2001559,982304,529 2002472,364310,620 2003865,070316,752 2004617,733322,927 2005810,484699,146 2006778,301336,408 20071,513,424157,300 2008369,291119,646 12,100,9343,918,550 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION: For information. 2010-01-08 ïíì CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #41 – Historical Budget by Department and Division FUND: OPERATING DEPARTMENT: Financial Services PREPARER: Roger LeBrun, Manager of Financial Planning BACKGROUND: As directed by Council at the Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting on th December 7, 2009, staff is submitting the following information as requested by Council as it relates to the tax-based operating budget by department and division along with the 2010 proposed budget. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: Attachments are as follows: Appendix A provides detail on the 2008 actual and budget balances by department. ppendix B provides detail on the 2009 actual and budget balances by department as of A the latest Interim Reporting cycle (September 2009). Appendix C provides detail on the 2010 budget balances by department. Appendix D provides detail on the 2010 budget by cost grouping. Due to restructuring of various divisions over the time period referenced and other divisional responsibility changes, the schedules have not been combined into one template. As a result, each year is reported separately. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A RECOMMENDATION: N/A 2010-01-11 ïíë CITY OF KITCHENER Appendix A STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS For the twelve months ended December 31, 2008 20082008 ActualBudget as of Decemberas of December GENERAL REVENUES TAXES GENERAL LEVY (87,177,984) (87,177,343) SUPPLEMENTARY TAXES/WRITE-OFFS (296,972) (1,500,000) LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS (227,787) (100,000) COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CAPPED - - PAYMENTS IN LIEU (2,726,502) (2,702,139) (90,429,246) (91,479,482) OTHER REVENUE INVESTMENT INCOME (3,460,425) (2,347,473) PENALTIES AND INTEREST (2,742,698) (2,617,255) CONTRIBUTION FROM ENTERPRISES (6,177,656) (6,177,656) CONTRIBUTIONS FROM RESERVES (3,583,416) (3,183,416) SUNDRY INCOME (422,490) (2,242) (16,386,686) (14,328,042) (105,807,524)(106,815,931) TOTAL GENERAL REVENUES NET DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE ADMINISTRATION 745,641 752,017 CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS 1,126,817 1,209,754 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2,417,818 2,406,492 MARKET 417,553 381,254 HUMAN RESOURCES 1,780,356 1,750,455 INTERNAL AUDIT & PERF. MEASUREMENT 126,926 125,465 6,615,111 6,625,437 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION 862,237 862,534 ARTS & CULTURE 224,907 232,795 AQUATICS & ATHLETICS ATHLETICS 997,846 1,011,126 POOLS 1,101,625 1,067,417 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS & SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 412,499 394,061 BREITHAUPT (53,046) (19,514) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,728,104 1,957,911 PROGRAMS AND SERVICES 1,012,104 1,132,617 SENIORS 666,647 680,273 SUPPORT SERVICES 215,154 222,101 ENTERPRISE SERVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATION 220,093 211,976 CEMETERIES 1,569 133,682 FOOD AND BEVERAGE 40,582 5,830 KMAC & ARENAS 604,020 770,155 SPECIAL EVENTS 681,020 616,896 OPERATIONS ADMINISTRATION 3,155,292 2,837,179 CONCRETE REPAIRS 717,400 654,345 DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE 514,476 545,662 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1,693,744 1,913,192 MINOR IMPROVEMENTS/REPAIRS 650,576 724,396 ROAD MAINTENANCE 1,461,441 1,095,163 SANITATION 1,196,314 1,192,046 SIGN SHOP (40,288) (66,908) SPORTSFIELDS, TRAILS & PARKS 1,330,861 1,262,981 STORM SEWERS 586,032 467,363 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE 445,564 428,734 TURF & RINKS MTCE 1,302,267 1,271,821 WATERCOURSE MAINTENANCE 207,376 282,279 WINTER MAINTENANCE 5,388,882 3,728,424 27,325,297 25,616,537 ïíê CITY OF KITCHENER Appendix A STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS For the twelve months ended December 31, 2008 20082008 ActualBudget as of Decemberas of December CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 779,525756,047 MAYOR & COUNCIL T BY-LAW ENFORCEMEN ADMINISTRATION 330,574 328,328 PARKING/NOISE 90,333 (181,752) PROPERTY 692,657 682,557 CLERKS CLERKS ADMINISTRATION 775,539 851,210 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT (16,989) (392) ELECTIONS 98,531 98,500 LICENCING (87,160) (71,730) MAILROOM 251,005 333,873 RECORDS 200,668 208,898 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 8,122,325 8,157,408 FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION 594,468 554,279 INFORMATION SERVICES GIS 752,715 822,775 INFORMATION SERVICES-GENERAL 2,820,713 2,783,647 758,383758,654 LEGAL 16,105,50916,140,081 T DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES DEP 861,898901,369 ADMINISTRATION - GM ENGINEERING SERVICES ADMINISTRATION1,301,717 1,108,283 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING2,361,514 2,235,740 PARKING(2,394,104) (2,097,902) FIRE ADMINISTRATION2,486,506 2,538,717 ALARM MONITORING(58,365) (29,929) APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT906,203 949,875 PREVENTION1,347,611 1,300,429 SUPPRESSION19,589,066 19,531,041 TRAINING466,352 467,045 1,030,122895,181 PLANNING 27,895,31927,803,051 T FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMEN 873,939874,971 ACCOUNTING 200,646178,163 N ADMINISTRATIO 557,451556,726 FINANCIAL PLANNING & REPORTING G PURCHASIN PURCHASING 414,057 400,388 STORES - - 560,372 579,642 REVENUE 2,584,289 2,612,066 78,854,86880,467,829 S NET DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE GENERAL EXPENSES GRANTS-CHARITABLE 1,635,458 1,639,128 KITCHENER PUBLIC LIBRARY 8,395,545 8,395,545 CENTRE IN THE SQUARE 1,354,914 1,314,027 OTHER 789,775 173,858 GAPPING & EFFICIENCY RECOVERIES (1,849,554) (2,233,915) DEBT CHARGES 3,842,629 3,866,086 CAPITAL OUT OF CURRENT 6,752,000 6,752,000 CONTRACT SERVICES 1,069,223 1,032,166 TRANSFERS TO RESERVES 6,326,691 5,653,011 TAX WRITEOFFS & REBATES 270,739 225,750 PROVISIONS - BAD DEBT ALLOWANCE 217,853 135,000 TOTAL GENERAL EXPENSES 28,805,274 26,952,656 2,457,171 - GRAND TOTAL ïíé Appendix B CITY OF KITCHENER STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS For the nine months ended September 30, 2009 20092009 ActualAnnual as of SeptBudget GENERAL REVENUES TAXES GENERAL LEVY (91,799,939) (91,800,062) SUPPLEMENTARY TAXES/WRITE-OFFS 12,827 (1,500,000) LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS (200,806) (100,000) COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CAPPED (327,902) - PAYMENTS IN LIEU (1,353,942) (2,702,139) (93,669,762) (96,102,201) OTHER REVENUE INVESTMENT INCOME (601,708) (2,347,473) PENALTIES AND INTEREST (2,213,647) (2,695,773) CONTRIBUTION FROM ENTERPRISES (4,772,241) (6,462,988) CONTRIBUTIONS FROM RESERVES (750,000) (2,746,666) SUNDRY INCOME (107,489) (128,896) (8,445,086) (14,381,796) (102,114,847) (110,483,997) TOTAL GENERAL REVENUES NET DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE ADMINISTRATION 521,395 746,561 CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS 634,975 1,075,921 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1,746,596 2,525,261 MARKET 375,233 282,220 HUMAN RESOURCES 1,280,639 1,886,442 INTERNAL AUDIT & PERF. MEASUREMENT 70,373 133,236 4,629,211 6,649,641 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION 512,665 740,344 DEPT PLAN RESEARCH TECH SUP 249,191 357,596 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS & SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 219,622 366,643 AQUATICS AND ATHLETICS 883,047 1,073,545 ARTS & CULTURE 169,766 243,251 COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTRES 1,674,915 2,740,398 PROGRAM & RESOURCE SERVICES 1,208,421 1,392,509 VOLUNTEER RESOURCES 113,677 174,887 ENTERPRISE SERVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATION 147,065 220,786 CEMETERIES 16,427 88,687 FOOD AND BEVERAGE 29,466 12,317 KMAC & ARENAS 783,585 750,877 SPECIAL EVENTS 591,420 647,273 OPERATIONS ADMINISTRATION 4,406,428 4,375,046 OPERATIONS ADMIN REGIONAL (284,055) - SIDEWALK REPAIRS 265,916 623,266 DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE 289,006 549,847 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1,211,915 1,772,595 MINOR IMPROVEMENTS/REPAIRS 227,317 432,162 ROAD MAINTENANCE 1,689,371 1,231,045 SANITATION 581,378 1,136,895 SIGN SHOP 12,620 (77,478) SPORTSFIELDS, TRAILS & PARKS 825,071 997,850 STORM SEWERS 339,068 394,433 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE 252,745 314,023 TURF & RINKS MTCE 958,352 1,328,455 WATERCOURSE MAINTENANCE242,758 288,099 WINTER MAINTENANCE 2,663,033 3,817,068 20,280,190 25,992,419 ïíè Appendix B CITY OF KITCHENER STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS For the nine months ended September 30, 2009 20092009 ActualAnnual as of SeptBudget CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 798,093504,554 MAYOR & COUNCIL 279,953192,010 ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION246,902 343,340 PARKING/NOISE(5,140) (241,329) PROPERTY453,179 739,695 CLERKS CLERKS ADMINISTRATION469,145 656,494 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT(2,392) 312 ELECTIONS- 98,500 LICENCING(182,338) (88,166) MAILROOM233,651 318,884 RECORDS151,854 220,807 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE5,682,635 8,489,159 FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION476,893 588,426 INFORMATION SERVICES GIS536,953 756,343 INFORMATION SERVICES-GENERAL2,099,649 2,999,166 797,020567,690 LEGAL 16,756,69711,425,246 DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES DEPT 855,464628,422 ADMINISTRATION - GM ENGINEERING SERVICES ADMINISTRATION1,164,327 1,124,847 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING1,518,042 2,279,752 PARKING(1,901,677) (2,141,945) FIRE ADMINISTRATION2,000,184 2,757,524 ALARM MONITORING(129,670) (36,696) APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT607,581 1,001,079 PREVENTION946,675 1,416,195 SUPPRESSION13,900,404 20,941,061 TRAINING286,912 494,372 1,140,490819,668 PLANNING 29,832,14319,840,869 FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 874,309 631,461 ACCOUNTING 126,874 198,916 ADMINISTRATION 344,906 600,131 FINANCIAL PLANNING SUPPLY SERVICES PURCHASING 198,254 395,893 STORES 8,416 - 387,066 551,987 REVENUE (234,817) - FLEET 1,462,161 2,621,236 57,637,678 81,852,136 NET DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES GENERAL EXPENSES GRANTS-CHARITABLE 1,770,864 2,360,588 KITCHENER PUBLIC LIBRARY 6,840,000 8,652,795 CENTRE IN THE SQUARE 1,003,676 1,338,234 OTHER (3,041,393) 271,493 GAPPING & EFFICIENCY RECOVERIES (1,004,613) (2,300,932) DEBT CHARGES 2,541,932 3,905,448 CAPITAL OUT OF CURRENT 6,232,000 6,232,000 CONTRACT SERVICES 1,129,241 1,150,639 TRANSFERS TO RESERVES 6,626,599 6,630,346 TAX WRITEOFFS & REBATES 277,539 256,250 PROVISIONS - BAD DEBT ALLOWANCE 101,250 135,000 ïíç Appendix B CITY OF KITCHENER STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS For the nine months ended September 30, 2009 20092009 ActualAnnual as of SeptBudget TOTAL GENERAL EXPENSES22,477,095 28,631,861 -(22,000,075) GRAND TOTAL ïìð Appendix C 2010 Tax-Based Budget By Department/Division/Section DEPARTMENT_NAMEDIVISION_NAMESECTION_NAMETotal COMMUNITY SERVICESADMINISTRATIONADMINISTRATION758,093 DEPT PLAN RESEARCH TECH SUPPORT399,228 ADMINISTRATION Total 1,157,321 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS & SERVICEADMINISTRATION 362,878 S AQUATICS & ATHLETICS 1,094,639 ARTS & CULTURE 257,872 BREITHAUPT (45,199) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2,276,873 PROGRAMS & SERVICES 1,443,626 SENIORS 764,942 SUPPORT SERVICES 183,242 COMMUNITY PROGRAMS & SERVICES Total 6,338,873 ENTERPRISE SERVICES DIVISIONADMINISTRATION 231,350 CEMETERIES 83,113 FOOD & BEVERAGE 27,105 KMAC & ARENAS 519,386 SPECIAL EVENTS 686,402 ENTERPRISE SERVICES DIVISION Total 1,547,356 OPERATIONSADMINISTRATION 4,539,422 CONCRETE REPAIRS 639,130 DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE 565,831 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1,817,894 MINOR IMPROVEMENT/REPAIRS 628,831 ROAD MAINTENANCE 1,083,485 SANITATION 1,170,674 SPORTSFIELDS, TRAILS, PARKS & SITES 2,379,124 STORM SEWERS 405,625 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE 242,029 WATERCOURSE MAINTENANCE 297,706 WINTER MAINTENANCE 4,138,724 OPERATIONS Total 17,908,475 COMMUNITY SERVICES Total 26,952,025 CORPORATE SERVICESBY-LAW ENFORCEMENTADMINISTRATION 526,784 PARKING/NOISE (99,257) PROPERTY 788,015 BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT Total 1,215,542 FACILITIES MANAGEMENTADMINISTRATION 492,829 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 8,884,908 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Total 9,377,737 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYGENERAL 4,039,547 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Total 4,039,547 LEGAL SERVICESGENERAL 831,337 LEGAL SERVICES Total 831,337 LEGISLATIVE SERVADMINISTRATION 1,007,117 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 2,131 ELECTIONS 90,000 LICENCING (147,740) PRINTING 285,694 RECORDS 229,294 LEGISLATIVE SERV Total 1,466,496 CORPORATE SERVICES Total 16,930,659 DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION - GMGENERAL 863,365 ADMINISTRATION - GM Total 863,365 ENGINEERING SERVICESADMINISTRATION 1,192,161 PARKING (2,572,525) TRANSPORATION PLANNING 2,248,419 ENGINEERING SERVICES Total 868,055 FIREADMINISTRATION 24,954,380 APPARATUS & EQUIPMENT 933,342 DIRECT ALARM MONITORING (62,445) PREVENTION 1,467,554 TRAINING 508,936 FIRE Total 27,801,767 PLANNINGADMINISTRATION 1,186,341 PLANNING Total 1,186,341 DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES Total 30,719,528 ïìï Appendix C DEPARTMENT_NAMEDIVISION_NAMESECTION_NAMETotal FINANCIAL SERVICESACCOUNTINGNO SECTION 1,167,386 ACCOUNTING Total 1,167,386 ADMINISTRATIONNO SECTION 201,863 ADMINISTRATION Total 201,863 FINANCIAL PLANNING & REPORTINGNO SECTION 522,646 FINANCIAL PLANNING & REPORTING Total 522,646 PURCHASINGPURCHASING 451,272 STORES - PURCHASING Total 451,272 REVENUENO SECTION 580,740 REVENUE Total 580,740 FINANCIAL SERVICES Total 2,923,907 GENERAL EXPENSESGENERAL EXPENSESGENERAL EXPENSES 30,373,267 GENERAL EXPENSES Total 30,373,267 GENERAL EXPENSES Total 30,373,267 GENERAL REVENUEGENERAL REVENUEGENERAL REVENUE (108,563,073) GENERAL REVENUE Total (108,563,073) GENERAL REVENUE Total (108,563,073) MAYOR AND COUNCILNO DIVISIONNO SECTION 866,816 NO DIVISION Total 866,816 MAYOR AND COUNCIL Total 866,816 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATORADMINISTRATIONNO SECTION 896,228 ADMINISTRATION Total 896,228 CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONSNO SECTION 1,161,324 CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS Total 1,161,324 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTGENERAL 2,908,450 MARKET 271,486 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Total 3,179,936 HUMAN RESOURCESGENERAL 1,973,193 HUMAN RESOURCES Total 1,973,193 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR Total 7,210,681 Grand Total 7,413,810 Plus Pending Items Not Yet in the Budget System Assessment Growth (1,230,121) List of Proposed Budget Reductions (3,389,192) Proposed Levy Increase as of December 7, 20092,794,497 ïìî 2010 Operating Budget by Group Code Appendix D Group Code2009 Budget2010 BudgetVarianceVariance % 10SALARIES58,450,361 62,930,925 4,480,564 7.67% 15WAGES22,534,136 23,919,503 1,385,367 6.15% 20ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES4,858,855 4,910,423 51,568 1.06% 25EQUIPMENT RESERVE CHARGES6,440,984 6,665,903 224,919 3.49% 30BOARDS9,991,029 10,284,796 293,767 2.94% 35DEBT EXPENSE4,623,710 4,682,137 58,427 1.26% 40MATERIALS & SUPPLIES5,014,037 5,239,859 225,822 4.50% 45PROFESSIONAL & CONTRACT SERVICES4,015,940 3,649,025 (366,915) -9.14% 50RENTALS & LEASES1,408,094 1,427,117 19,023 1.35% 55GRANTS PAID2,680,307 2,765,722 85,415 3.19% 60PROMOTIONAL COSTS1,240,855 1,085,490 (155,365) -12.52% 70REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE796,644 836,826 40,182 5.04% 75UTILITIES/TAXES5,296,640 5,398,059 101,419 1.91% 80TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS13,031,323 14,567,878 1,536,555 11.79% 85INTERNAL CHARGES3,484,263 3,951,614 467,351 13.41% 90INTERNAL RECOVERIES(10,915,111) (11,029,896) (114,785) 1.05% EXPENDITURES Subtotal132,952,067 141,285,381 8,333,314 6.27% 01GENERAL LEVY(91,800,062) (91,800,062) - 0.00% 02OTHER TAXATION(4,302,139) (3,396,138) 906,001 -21.06% 03USER FEES(18,567,999) (20,396,967) (1,828,968) 9.85% 04GRANTS RECEIVED(605,508) (614,807) (9,299) 1.54% 05RECEIVED FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES(217,825) (241,398) (23,573) 10.82% 07TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS(9,312,932) (9,363,610) (50,678) 0.54% 08SUNDRY INCOME(8,145,602) (8,058,589) 87,013 -1.07% REVENUES Subtotal(132,952,067) (133,871,571) (919,504)0.69% Grand Total 7,413,810-7,413,810 Plus Pending Items Not Yet in the Budget System Assessment Growth(1,230,121) List of Proposed Budget Reductions(3,389,192) Proposed Levy Increase as of December 7, 20092,794,497 ïìí CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #42 – Legislative Changes FUND: Operating and Capital DEPARTMENT: All PREPARER: Roger LeBrun, Manager of Financial Planning BACKGROUND: As directed by Council at the Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting on December 7th, 2009, staff is submitting the following information as requested by Council. The attached is a summary of the impact of legislative changes on the tax-base and enterprise budgets from 2000-2009. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: This information provided in Appendix A is intended to provide context for the impact of legislative changes on the City’s operating budget. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The impact of legislative changes is non-discretionary and must be built into the City’s budget. RECOMMENDATION: None 2010-01-11 ïìì Appendix A EXTRA COSTS TO THE CITY OF KITCHENER DUE TO LEGISLATIVE CHANGES 2000-2009 FUNCTIONAL AREA2000200120022003200420052006200720082009 TAX-BASE CHANGES FINANCIAL SERVICES Foregone interest due to late tax bills195,000570,000300,000306,000312,120318,362324,730331,224337,849344,606 New tax bill format20,0005,0005,1005,2025,3065,4125,5205,6315,743 Vacancy administration20,00020,40020,80821,22421,64922,08222,52322,97423,433 Rebate programs administration1,0201,0401,0611,0821,1041,1261,1491,1721,1951,219 Fleet Drive Clean85,73020,08458,40024,52320,93420,00020,40020,80821,22421,649 Additional GST Rebate(600,000)(617,000)(643,000)(655,860)(668,977)(682,357) Ontario Regulation 363/04 National Load Securement Standard 30,00030,600 PSAB 3150160,000173,000148,840 Harmonization of PST/GST (HST)13,000 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Asbestos management program20,0005,0005,1005,2025,3065,412 Electrical safety authority30,00030,60031,21231,83632,47333,122 Backflow prevention50,0006,0006,1206,2426,3676,495 TSSA - pressure piping19,0004,0004,0804,1624,2454,330 Bill 124 permit requirements5,0005,1005,2025,3065,412 Generator verification60,00061,20062,42463,67264,94666,245 Roof anchors inspection4,0004,0804,1624,2454,3304,416 TSSA - amusement devices (pools & waterslides)3,2303,2953,3603,4283,4963,566 Arc Flash Safety Requirements60,00015,00015,000 Security Guard Act24,000 CSD Public Spa Regulations - Lyle Hallman Pool10,0005,000 HR Construction Projects O. Reg. 275/05 Asbestos2,0002,0402,0812,122 Ontario Regulation 363/04 National Load Securement Standard 3,0003,0603,1213,184 Confined Space 628 for construction, 629 Industrial5,00010,50019,72534,000 Noise Regulatory Changes, Industrial9,0009,0009,000 Permit System100,000100,00050,000 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Development Charges reduction87,66748,111385,44454,000487,524352,189197,9341,109,994773,444327,444 New School Site Plans 1/yr7,8757,7507,9058,0638,2248,3898,5578,7288,9029,080 ROADWAYS Regulatory signs50,00050,000 Traffic control75,15720,000 Standby generator load testing8,5688,7398,9149,0929,2749,4609,6499,84210,03910,240 Road patrol150,000153,000156,060159,181162,365165,612168,924172,303 CSA playground surface30,00030,60031,21231,83632,47333,12233,78534,461 Traffic calming EA's30,00030,60031,21231,83632,47333,122 Hours of Work85,000173,560173,560 Training and Compliance Co-Ordinator85,00076,00076,000 FIRE Inspection for hotels, motels and nursing homes78,90481,69082,36385,98188,79987,70190,57592,38694,234106,748 Emergency planning and preparedness56,74873,72157,88375,19576,69978,23376,946 Fire investigations 39,45240,84541,11842,99044,39943,85045,28746,19347,11753,374 Training - to meet provincial standards88,19490,93088,92192,828131,790185,027193,157197,020200,960230,496 Fire Safety Plan Review53,374 CORPORATE SERVICES Election Costs Over 4 Years vs. 3(31,189)(31,189)(31,189) Loss of Birth Registration Function38,98240,151 TOTAL TAX-BASE CHANGES642,4101,034,3461,199,527890,8161,007,818834,733748,7332,139,8211,873,7561,508,548 ENTERPRISE CHANGES FINANCIAL SERVICES Gas Distribution Access Rule (GDAR) 373,638451,057475,030428,576 Additional GST Rebate(500,000)(514,167)(535,833)(546,550)(557,481)(568,631) PSAB 315090,00098,00074,160 WATERWORKS Water quality testing15,00015,30015,60615,91816,23616,56116,89247,23048,175 Safe Drinking Water Act176,098181,381186,823192,427198,200 Recertification15,0005,0005,1005,2025,3065,4125,5205,6315,7435,858 SANITARY UTILITY Hours of Work45,80046,71647,650 Training and Compliance Co-Ordinator15,00015,30015,606 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Building Inspection Services - New Certification re: Bill 12415,00015,30015,60015,91216,23016,55516,886 TOTAL ENTERPRISE CHANGES15,00020,00020,40035,808(463,476)(300,820)57,179280,883339,521266,481 TOTAL IMPACT OF LEGISLATIVE CHANGES657,4101,054,3461,219,927926,624544,342533,913805,9132,420,7042,213,2771,775,029 Notes: 1. Costs are approximations 2. Federal Gas Tax Revenue excluded as it is a grant (unlike GST rebate which is a permanent legislative change) ïìë CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #43 – EDIF Funding and Options for Levy Reduction FUND: OPERATING and CAPITAL DEPARTMENT: General Expense PREPARER: Ruth-Anne Goetz, Senior Financial Analyst BACKGROUND: This issue paper reviews the potential impact of amending the EDIF special levy for 2010. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: The $110million EDIF is a 10 year program where funds are derived from two sources, namely debt ($89million) and tax levy ($21million). Each year, $8.9million of debentures are issued, and the amount generated through the special levy varies. Most of the annual EDIF levy increase is allocated to fund debt service costs (principal and interest) for the 15 year debenture that was issued in the previous year. The followingtable is derived from the original EDIF model, and identifies the incremental amounts that are anticipated to be levied each year to fund debt service and raise the $21million in additional capital funding. Under this model, the majority of the amount required in 2010will be utilized for the additional cost of debt service for debentures issued in 2009. 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 Debt Pmt Change Net Levy Change 400,000 200,000 - 2004200520062007200820092010201120122013 (200,000) (400,000) s seen in the graph above, due to the reduction of the EDIF capital levy rate charged in 2008, A the debt payment exceeded the value of the levy collected. 2010-01-08 ïìê Unfunded Expenditures in EDIF Cash Flow Currently, $10.1million of the Centre Block land purchase remains unfunded. It is important that the City maintain a commitment to funding this in the timeline originally envisioned, or sooner if possible. If the EDIF funding is decreased, this would put this project in jeopardy. Obligations Approximately $31.9 million remains in the City commitment to fund the expansion of the Central Library, in addition to the $5.5million for the Centre Block parking garage and a $1million contribution to the Local Environmental Action Fund reserve. Deficits The EDIF cash flow currently anticipates a deficit starting in 2011 until the end of the fund, in 2013. Unless significant reductions are made to the scope of the EDIF program, adjusting the amount and timing of funding will only serve to create larger deficits in the fund. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Reducing the EDIF levy would compromise the City’s ability to meet its debt service obligations under the program, which would potentially jeopardize commitments to significant projects within EDIF and thereby result in an even great cash flow deficit in the program. For these reasons, staff strongly recommend that no action be taken to reduce the level of funding into EDIF in 2010 unless significant permanent reductions are made to the scope of the program. RECOMMENDATION: For information. 2010-01-08 ïìé CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #44 - Victoria Park Lake – Implementation of Class EA Study FUND: Operating/Capital DEPARTMENT: DTS/Engineering Services PREPARER: Grant Murphy, Director of Engineering BACKGROUND: In 2008 the City initiated a Class Environmental Assessment Study to explore alternatives and prepare a preliminary design that addresses Victoria Park Lake’s sediment accumulation and water quality problems. The Victoria Park Lake study area comprises Victoria Park Lake and the Schneider Creek Watershed upstream of the lake, which includes the Upper Henry Sturm Greenway, the Lower Henry Sturm Greenway, Detweiler Greenway, Sandrock Greenway, and Westmount Drain. The Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study Report was received and approved by Council th on June 15 2009 (DTS Report 09-096). The preferred alternative for the Victoria Park Lake is Alternative 3 – Reconfigure Lake to Improve Function. The main features of this alternative are dredging of sediments, deepening of the Lake, construction of a sediment forebay at the upstream end of the Park, while maintaining the general configuration of the Lake. A key objective of the Study was to identify solutions which would improve the quality of the water before it enters Victoria Park Lake and include several new or retrofit storm water management opportunities. RATIONALE/ANALYSIS The Class EA Study Report estimated the cost of these projects to be $9.45M (Class “C” estimate). The cost estimate was revised to approximately $16M based upon additional information from other stormwater management pond retrofit work already tendered and taking place in the City in 2009. As part of the 10 year (2010 to 2019) capital forecast process, staff analyzed options to implement the Class EA Study Report recommendations. However, it was determined that the Victoria Park Lake and associated upstream projects could not be included in the forecast until 2019. This was mainly due to many other funding commitments of higher priority and Council direction to minimize tax levy impacts in 2010. On November 23, 2009 Council provided further direction to staff to develop an implementation plan which would see phasing of the preferred alternative of the Victoria Park Lake Class EA Study much sooner than 2019. The budget issue paper will discuss potential phasing of implementation and possible funding options available to Council for consideration. Proposed Implementation Phasing The Class EA Study Report provided a phasing plan over a five (5) year period, starting in 2009 with final completion in 2013. Staff have revisited this phasing plan, taking into consideration existing capital infrastructure project commitments for 2010. Based upon this assessment, it is not anticipated that detailed engineering design work could begin before 2011, with construction not starting until 2012. The following sequence for the implementation is proposed, based upon the Class EA Study recommendations and adjusted for commencement in 2011: 2010-01-14 ïìè Table 1 - Proposed Sequence of Implementation Task Year Detailed Design (Lake components) 2011 Phase 1 Construction (Lake components) 2012 Detailed Design (Upper Henry Sturm Greenway Ponds and 2012 Restoration) Phase 2 Construction (Upper Henry Sturm Greenway Ponds and 2013 - 2014 Restoration) Detailed Design (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway ponds) 2013 Phase 3 Construction (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway ponds) 2014 - 2015 Detailed Design (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway Restoration) 2014 Phase 3 Construction (Lower Henry Sturm Greenway 2015 Restoration) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The capital cost of implementing recommendations of the study are shown in Table 2 and for the purposes of this discussion the total costs are estimated to range from $10M to $16M (Class “C” estimate). A significant increase in construction costs has recently been noted for a variety of project work funded under the Infrastructure Stimulus Program and the Community Adjustment Fund, due to competition for both labour and material resources. Table 2 – Victoria Park Lake Improvements – Estimate of Capital Cost Requirements ComponentsDescription of Work Range of Estimated Capital Cost* Lake-based Improvements Forebay construction and $1.4M to $2.8M deepening lake Dredging and disposal of existing $5.7 to $7.6M sediment Sub-Total$7.1M to $10.4M Upstream Improvements Upstream SWM, new ponds and retrofits of existing ponds, creek restoration measures $2.4M to $4.8M Total$9.5M to $15.6M * including contingency and engineering in 2009 dollars (Class “C” estimate) Potential Funding Sources There have been attempts to implement the recommendations of the Class EA Study Report as part of the ten (10) year (2010 to 2019) capital forecast process. However from a financial perspective, it was determined by staff that the Victoria Park Lake and associated upstream stormwater management projects could not be included in the forecast until 2019. This was mainly due to many other funding commitments of higher priority and Council direction to reduce the tax levy in 2010. 2010-01-14 ïìç Three (3) options for funding the Victoria Park Lake and upstream stormwater management works are presented for Council’s consideration: 1) Reallocate between $10M to $16M of tax-base supported funding by reprioritizing existing projects in the ten (10) year capital program, specifically between 2011 and 2015. It is anticipated that $2.9M would be required annually for the Victoria Park Lake and upstream works. The Development Charges reserve fund cash flow would be re- adjusted to shift $1.425M in eligible D/C funding into 2011, in order to initiate detailed design work. A detailed re-prioritization of projects is not provided with this report, however the following infrastructure programs would be reduced in the capital forecast on an annual basis: a) roads re-surfacing program ($1.2M), b) accelerated infrastructure renewal program ($1.2M), c) stormwater management and drainage projects ($0.5M) This approach would reduce road resurfacing by 19 lane kilometres annually or 95 lane kilometres over 5 years; and reduce the accelerated infrastructure renewal program by 1.8 kilometres annually or about 9 kilometres over 5 years. This approach further increases the City’s infrastructure deficit in these areas and is not recommended by staff. 2) In 2009, applications for infrastructure stimulus funding were pursued by the City to the federal and provincial governments in order to complete dredging of Victoria Park Lake. The City was not successful in its attempt to obtain funding for this project. Staff have considered the Community Adjustment Fund (CAF) as an option for funding the Victoria Park Lake and upstream works. However, these grants impose timelines that are not realistic given the potential scope of the work being proposed (5 year project). In the case of CAF, the work would have to be completed by March 31 2011. Staff resource limitations raise the risk of not completing all the work prior to the grant deadline. This will require the Engineering Services Division to re-direct resources away from projects and programs already committed to in 2010. This scenario would result in partial implementation of the plan, exposing the City to construction or financial related risks. This approach is not sustainable and is subject to the whim of federal and provincial levels of government, as such is not recommended by staff. 3) Implement a stormwater rate structure which will be applied to all property owners in the City. Council received reports DTS 09-042 and DTS 09-131 on October 6, 2009, which identified the need for a sustainable funding source for stormwater management programming. Options were presented to Council to fund an annual sustainable level of service for stormwater management of $9.9M (2007 dollars), beginning in 2011. Approximately 59% of the sustainable service level is already being funded from the tax base, and as such this proposal would see an additional 41% funded through a rate structure. Implementation of a stormwater rate would generate an adequate level of funding for the Victoria Park Lake and upstream stormwater management works in a sustainable and timely manner. This approach best achieves the objectives of Council and is th recommended by staff. Staff will bring forward a report on January 18 2010 for Council’s consideration as part of the final 2010 budget deliberations. 2010-01-14 ïëð CONCLUSION: The completion of the Victoria Park Lake Class Environmental Assessment Study Report has established a preferred alternative for addressing the water quality issues of Victoria Park Lake. Council has directed staff to provide an implementation plan which would see completion of the preferred alternatives prior to 2019. An expedited phasing plan is presented for consideration, beginning in 2011 and construction being complete in 2015. The estimated cost for implementation ranges from $10M to $16M, but it is reiterated that without a sustainable funding source this expedited phasing plan is not achievable. Three (3) options were considered for funding the remediation of Victoria Park Lake; re- prioritization of projects, funding applications and implementation of a sustainable storm water rate. The first two options do not provide a sustainable approach to managing the City’s infrastructure needs. A stormwater rate would address pressing issues related to Victoria Park Lake remediation and upstream stormwater management improvements, enabling the City to better protect the environment. RECOMMENDATION: That the revised implementation plan for preferred alternatives in accordance with the Victoria Park Lake Class Environmental Assessment Study Report, be included in the ten (10) year capital forecast starting in 2011, pending the approval of a new sustainable funding source to achieve this increased service level. 2010-01-14 ïëï CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: # 45 - Youth Drop-In Program (information regarding external funding) FUND: Operating DEPARTMENT: Community Services – Program & Resource Services PREPARER: Lori Palubeski, Manager, Program & Resource Services BACKGROUND: s directed by Council at the Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting on A th December 7, 2009, staff is submitting the following information as it relates to the external funding received to support the implementation of the Youth Drop-In program. REPORT: Since the early 2000’s, staff have submitted applications to the Summer Jobs Service program. This program is funded by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universitiesand is administrated locally through Lutherwood. Summer Jobs Service is designed to help students to prepare for work and to gain valuable “on the job” experience while providing a wage subsidy to employers. In 2009, the City of Kitchener secured $8,256.00 from this program. These dollars provided a wage subsidy for 22 out of 34 student positions (a total of 4,128 hours). 2010-01-08 ïëî CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: # 46.1 - Kitchener in Bloom Program FUND: Capital DEPARTMENT: CSD, Community Programs and Services and Operations PREPARER: Janice Ouellette, Facilitator of Volunteer Resources and Community Engagement BACKGROUND: The following information was requested at Finance and Corporate Services Committee Operating Budget discussion on December 7, 2009 related to the potential elimination of the Kitchener in Bloom program: That sponsorship opportunities be sought for the Kitchener In Bloom program. Efforts have been made in the past to secure sponsorship dollars from community businesses without success. The Horticulture Society and Master Gardeners (program partners who receive grants from the City of Kitchener) do not have the capacity to provide sponsorship dollars at this time. Canada Post, a program partner, provided in-kind sponsorship by covering the cost of delivering 50,000 program/nomination brochures at a value of $5,000. In-kind sponsorship for the printing of colour program/ nomination brochures, approximately $2,500 in value, was also received in the pastBoth forms of sponsorship were discontinued when the sponsors decided they could no . longer afford to provide the support. Other support that has been provided over the years includes complimentary CKWR radio ads, Record and Community newspaper ads (in junction with ad buys), prize donations from Home Hardware-Ontario Seed and York Nursery, and volunteer program nominators from Canada Post. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: th Since the December 7 meeting, committee members have made calls to local businesses to explore possible sponsorship opportunities. To date no calls have been returned. Further information will be provided to Council, regarding the willingness of businesses to participate in sponsoring the program, in January. It should be noted thatdue to the current economic climate it may be difficult to obtain commitment for 2010. Little resources are available in the current budget to advance a sponsorship and donation program for Communities In Bloom above the current level, and as such any work to this end would become the responsibility of the volunteer committee members as opposed to marketing/ fundraising professionals. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff would realize a savings of $14,000 by completely eliminating the Kitchener in Bloom program. As an alternative, staff could reduce the Kitchener In Bloom budget by $8,000 and maintain support to the program at its current size. For the future, committee members could work to develop community sponsorship support for marketing, promotions, bloom bus tour, prizes and the finale celebration. RECOMMENDATION: That staff eliminate the Kitchener in Bloom program capital budget by $14,000 in the 10 year Capital forecast and reduce the c/c transfer to achieve levy reduction. 2010-01-11 ïëí CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #46.2 – Athletic Awards Program Sponsorship Opportunities FUND: Operating DEPARTMENT: CSD – Community Programs and Services PREPARER: Bob Cheyne, Supervisor of Athletics and Denise Keelan, Manager of Aquatics & Athletics BACKGROUND: The following information was requested at Finance and Corporate Services Committee Operating Budget discussion on December 7, 2009 related to the potential elimination of the Athletic Awards Event: That sponsorship opportunities be sought for the Athletic Awards Event RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: Staff has made contact with a couple of organizations who may be interested in sponsoring the Athletic Awards Banquet and will be meeting with them in January. A further update will be provided to Council in January. RECOMMENDATION: That the Athletic Awards event be eliminated for a total operating budget savings of $7,000. 2010-01-11 ïëì CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: # 47 - Outdoor Pools Batherload Statistics 2008/2009 FUND: Operating DEPARTMENT: Community Services – Aquatics and Athletics & Community Programs and Services PREPARER: Denise Keelan, Manager of Aquatics and Athletics BACKGROUND: As directed by Council at the Finance and Corporate ServicesCommittee meeting on December 7, 2009, staff has prepared the following summary which shows the usage of the 4 outdoor facilities in June for 2008 and 2009. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: In an effort to reduce expenses a review of outdoor pool opening dates took place. Based on the number of swimmers per week, the heavier used pools are Harry Class Pool and Kiwanis Park facility. Pool June week 1 June week 2 June week 3 June week 4 June Totals Harry Class Pool Closed 392 490 304 1186 2008 opened June 7 Closed 379 730 1544 2653 2009 opened June 6 Idlewood Pool 309 503 217 259 1288 2008 opened June 1 100 85147 571 903 2009 opened June 1 Wilson Pool 373 Closed Closed 85288 2008 opened June 13 175 Closed Closed Closed 175 2009 opened June 21 Kiwanis Park Closed Closed 434 1585 2019 2008 opened June13 4188 Closed Closed 498 3690 2009 opened June13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In 2009 the staffing costs for Idlewood pool were $8,000 in June. Adelayed opening would impact on revenue of $1,500. By opening in late June the savings would amount to approximately $6,100 – $6,500 pending weather and rentals. RECOMMENDATION: th That staff delay the opening of Idlewood Pool to June 25 2010 to realize a potential savings of $6,500. 2010-01-11 ïëë CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: # 48 - Leisure Access – 2009 Financial Overview FUND: Operating DEPARTMENT: Community Services – Program & Resource Services PREPARER: Lori Palubeski, Manager, Program & Resource Services BACKGROUND: s directed by Council at the Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting on A th December 7, 2009, staff has prepared the following summary which provides a financial overview of the 2009 Leisure Access fee subsidy program. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: In 2009, there was a 20% increase in the number of subsidies issued from 2008. The 2009 allocated budget was $85,000 and the total amount of subsidies granted was $109,794. Staff was fortunate to secure funding from the Canadian Tire Jump Start foundation to offset the budget overage. The chart below depicts the 2009 subsidies broken down by program. Total Sold Total Subsidy Aquatics Swim Passes/Tickets adult 382 17,050.60 child 336 17,814.15 family 4 578.00 senior 74 4,207.25 summer swim passes 65 7,862.50 drop in admissions 9 324.50 Total subsidy for aquatic passes: 47,837.00 General Aquatic Programs 653 38,267.94 Total subsidy for aquatic programs: 38,267.94 Total subsidy for aquatics: $86,104.94 Memberships DCC 11 290.03 Rockway 4 98.00 Total subsidy for memberships: $388.03 Camps Playgrounds (ages: 3-12) 168 8,332.00 Breithaupt Camps (ages: JK - grade 7) 40 1,826.85 Kiwanis Park (ages: JK - grade 7) 3 372.00 Total subsidy for camps: $10,530.85 Athletics 7 466.30 Total subsidy for athletics: 466.30 Direct Leisure Programs Direct Leisure Programs (children, youth, adults, seniors - e.g. golf green fees, golf carts, BYLD, Boccia Ball, craft programs, preschool programs, etc.) 35412,303.58 Total subsidy for leisure programs: $12,303.58 TOTAL: $109,793.70 2010-01-08 ïëê CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: # 49 - Winter Maintenance Funding FUND: Operating DEPARTMENT: Community Services - Operations PREPARER: Jim Witmer, Director or Operations BACKGROUND: In August 2008, Council approved a series of recommendations contained within the Winter Maintenance Report CSD-08-066. The winter maintenance report was written to identify process improvements, staffing requirements, contracting options and then funding realities to ensure that the winter maintenance program can be efficient and effective. In that report, the That the principle of budgeting for winter following recommendation was presented: “ maintenance based on a 5 year rolling historical average cost be maintained, and the necessary adjustments to budget be referred to the 2009 Operating Budget Process.” Historically the Operations Division has had insufficient funds allocated for winter maintenance purposes. Given the uncertainty of the winter weather this shortfall has become significant when winter conditions are then above the norm. The 2008 Budget Issue Paper indicated that a shortfall of $420,000 existed in the budget based on the previous 5 year average. In the 2009 budget approval process it was recommended that $190,000 be added for winter maintenance with the remaining $235,000 identified for considerationduring the 2010 budget deliberations. th At the December 7, 2009 Operating budget review staff were requested to bring back a report that highlighted the last 5 years budget versus actual expenditures for winter maintenance. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The chart below highlights the difference between the budget allocations and the actual expenditures experienced. All figures have been inflated to 2010 dollars for comparative purposes. Year Budget Actual 2004 $3,954,924 $4,201,550 2005 $4,005,144 $4,774,929 2006 $3,948,076 $2,935,271 2007 $3,912,311 $5,117,394 2008 $4,110,587 $5,941,242 2009* $4,007,921 $4,409,242 *. Projected position based on interim financial statements reported in October The five year average (2004-2008) was $4,594,077 based on the actual costs incurred. Given the severity of the winters for those years, our analysis has concluded that on average, there is now an annual funding shortfall of $777,000 associated with winter maintenance. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approves funding as recommended previously in Issue Paper #21 of $235,000 to continue to address the identified shortfall in the winter maintenance budget so that we are able to provide the required services to meet our minimum maintenance standards and address Council and constituent expectations related to service standards. ïëé CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #50 - GASWORKS – DELIVERY REVENUES FUND: OPERATING DEPARTMENT: FINANCIAL SERVICES - UTILITIES WALTER J. MALCOLM, DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES PREPARER: BACKGROUND: As directed by Council at the Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting on December 7th, 2009, staff is submitting the following information as requested by Council. For 2010, budgeted revenues of $37.694 million from gas delivered to customers are lower than the 2009 budgeted and projected actual revenues (9% and 12%, respectively). RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: Projected revenues for 2010 are lower than 2009 due primarily to reduced usage of gas by customers (commercial / industrial demand destruction from plant closures / reduced shifts / energy conservation under poor economic conditions) over the last 2 years. 2009 Projected Actual vs. 2009 Budget The 2009 projected actual expenses reflect a $935,541 credit from Union Gas, as well as overall lower purchase costs due to consumption decreases. Excluding the credit from Union Gas, the gross profit percent is lowered to 49.91%as compared to the 2009 budgeted gross profit of 46.78%. Deficit mitigation factors also played a role in decreasing the expenses incurred by the Delivery company in 2009. The 2009 projected actual revenuesreflect a decrease in consumption compared to the 2009 budget. The financial impact of thisdecrease in consumption is offset by an increase in the number of customers billed at the highest level for Delivery (ie. Tier 1), which cause the projected revenues to exceed budget. 2010 Budget The 2010 projected volume sold to customers is projected to further decrease by approximately 2% as compared to the 2009 budget. The budget for 2010 is based on the premise that gross margin percentages will be similar to those that were experienced in 2008. The types of customers (industrial vs. residential) have an impact on revenues as the unit rate charged to industrial customers is lower than that of residential customers. In 2010, the transportation benefit is currently projected to be about $3 million. A comparable annual benefit is currently projected for each of the following four years, although with an increased degree of uncertainty over time, as supported by analysis from ECNG consultants. Differences in actual transportation costs and TCPL rates in future years could substantially decrease or increase the transportation benefit realized by the Delivery company. Note that the 2009 projected actual numbers have not yetbeen finalized and are subject to change. 2010-01-11 ïëè FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: As noted above. RECOMMENDATION: For information. 2010-01-11 ïëç CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #51 – Potential DC Project Deferrals FUND: Capital DEPARTMENT: DTS/Engineering PREPARER: Ruth-Anne Goetz, Senior Financial Analyst BACKGROUND: At the December 7, 2009 Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting, Council directed staff to prepare an issue paper regarding possible ways of reducing the 2010 expected deficit in the Development Charges reserve fund. On December 18, staff met with the Waterloo Regional Homebuilders Association (WRHBA) Liaison Committee regarding the 2010 capital forecast changes, as noted below. No concerns were raised by the members at that time. Staff indicated to the committee that there will be further opportunity for public input to the budget process on January 11, 2010. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: Current projections within the DC reserve fund indicate that the fund will be in deficit in the amount of $7.8 million by the end of 2010 (comprised of Engineering Services, with a projected deficit of $1.3 million, and Non-Engineering Services, with a projected deficit of $6.5 million). As noted earlier (see DTS 09-167, as presented to Finance Committee on November 23, 2009), the deficit will increase if the declining trend in development activity persists into 2010. Staff has reviewed the proposed timing of Engineering Development Charge (DC) funded projects against the cash flow projections within the DC Reserve Fund. Proposed changes to capital projects within the 10 year forecast are as follows: Project 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Description Old Mill Pumping (572) 572 Station Strasburg Road (1,724) 1,724 Extension Huron Road (4,257) 4,257 Total Proposed Changes Forecast (1,281) (6,933) (9,118) (17,387) (25,105) (22,996) (21,774) (19,547) (14,685) (45,396) Engineering Services Reserve Ending Balance Revised Forecast 5,403 (4,907) (7,011) (15,196) (22,827) (22,385) (21,138) (18,886) (13,997) (44,680) Engineering Services Reserve Ending Balance, if above changes made The Old Mill Pumping Station requires an environmental assessment to be completed before construction can begin. Therefore, this project will require funding in 2011, when construction is expected to commence. 2010-01-11 ïêð The Strasburg Road Extension project will not begin construction in 2010, and adequate funds have already been set aside to complete the design and environmental assessment. The funding requirements for this project will be reassessed during the 2011 budget cycle. The Huron Road project will occur in two phases, over two years starting in 2010. Detailed design and necessary property acquisition will be proceeding in 2010, with the first phase of construction anticipated to start in late 2010. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The proposed DC project deferrals will reduce the projected deficit in the reserve fund in 2010 by approximately $6.6 million, resulting in a projected deficit for the overall development charges reserve fund of $1.1 million. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the adjustments to the above mentioned projects. 2010-01-11 ïêï CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: #52 –1% Reduction in C/C for Projects greater than $100,000 FUND: Operating and Capital DEPARTMENT: ALL PREPARER: Saleh Saleh, Senior Financial Analyst BACKGROUND: At the December 7, 2009 Finance and Corporate Services committee meeting, Council had requested that staff provide information on the impact of 1% reduction in Capital out of Current (CC) contribution for projects greater than $100,000 in the 2010 ten year Capital Forecast. RATIONALE / ANALYSIS: The total CC funding allocated for 2010 in the proposed ten year capital forecast is $34,457,000. In addition, Federal Gas Tax funding allocated in 2010 equals $6,200,000. Council may wish to reduce projects funded by gas tax dollars by 1% and re-allocate the Federal Gas Tax funding to reduce the CC portions of other capital projects. The value of projects with an allocation greater than $100,000 in the 2010 year is $36,711,000. Appendix #1 to this issue paper provides a listing of each project with a CC or a Federal Gas Tax allocation greater than $100,000 and the impact of a 1% reduction in funding. Staff are recommending that the following category of projects notbe considered for a reduction: A) Triple Funded Projects- Reduction in the CC component will result in a proportionate decrease in the Water and Sewer funding source. B) Projects where funding in not available for each of the 10 years- For a permanent reduction in levy, a reduction is required in each of the 10 years of the 2010 Capital Forecast. Most of the accounts identified for a possible reduction in Appendix #1 are General Provision in nature and have already been reduced in previous years. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Reduction of 1% in the Capital Accounts identified in the tableabove will result in a savings of $69,740 or 0.075% of the levy. RECOMMENDATION: For Council direction. 2010-01-11 ïêî ïêí CITY OF KITCHENER 2010 BUDGET ISSUE PAPER ISSUE: # 53 – ROCKWAY SENIORS’ CENTRE FUND: OPERATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES – COMMUNITY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES PREPARER: Pauline Houston, General Manager, CSD BACKGROUND: The following information was requested at Financeand Corporate Services Committee Operating Budget discussion on December 7, 2009 related to the potential closing of Rockway Seniors’ Centre: Outline Operating budget Options, given that the final decision regarding closure will not o be made until March 2010, which is after Final Budget Day Details of Capital Budgets for: o $100,000 remedial repair requirements, assuming facility closes at the end of o 2010 $1,035,000 repair requirements over the next three years, assuming the facility o stays open Update on status of further consultations with stakeholders o RATIONALE/ANALYSIS: Operating Budget Options: 20102011 Option 1 - Recognize Savings in 2010 (Option Currently in 2010 Levy Projection) Base Operating Budget (Rockway and Kingsdale)513,067397,110 6 months Kingsdale (starting July 1st, 2010)139,000149,022 652,067546,132 savings from closing Rockway (funded from capital transfer)*-254,957 Total Operating Budget397,110546,132 * Note: by recognizing savings in 2010 for budget purposes, when facility doesn't close until 2011 means that $254,957 will need to be transferred from the capital provision for Rockway repairs to operating. Other Options that Could be Considered: Option 2 - Defer All Impacts to 2011 Impact to Bring Budget up to 2009 Base115,9570 12 months of Kingsdale in 2011288,022 115,957288,022 savings from closing Rockway -254,957 Net Change Required to Current Levy Budget Projection115,95733,065 Option 3 - Recognize Savings in 2011 Impact to Bring Budget up to 2009 Base115,9570 6 months Kingsdale (starting July 1st, 2010)139,000149,022 savings from closing Rockway-254,957 Net Change Required to Current Levy Budget Projection254,957-105,935 * Note: In order to recognize operating budget savings in 2010 when the facility would not be closing until 2011, it requires that $254,957 be transferred from the capital budget provision for 2010-01-08 ïêì Rockway facility repairs to operating. Currently, there is $400,000 set aside in capital funds for foundation repairs. Option 1 is recommended as the preferred option as it maximizes the operating budget benefit in the year that the decision is made. Details of Capital Budgets : Repairs required in 2010 (I year only) Funding Source Amount Description CC $100,000 Foundation water remediation from inside, replace interior wall (drywall), some ceiling tile replacement $1,035,000 (next 3 years) breakdown as follows: Funding Source Amount Description CC $400,000 Full Foundation repairs ISF(Accessibility) $400,000 Elevator replacement, washrooms Modifications CC $200,000 external accessibility modifications, gym floor repairs/replacement, internal program renovations, front façade upgrades Note: ISF funding can be transferred to accessibility upgrades in other city facilities(e.g. Breithaupt, Lyle Hallman and Forest Heights). Update on status of further consultations with stakeholders: In conjunction with the Rockway Centre Advisory Council and select stakeholders, a process is being developed for dialogue and transition planning with the members of the ongoing groups at Rockway Centre. As part of the process, information collection through a survey and discussion will take place with the 25 ongoing groups through the months of January and February 2010. These groups represent more than 625 members of Rockway Centre. This information and discussion will inform the transition plan to relocate these groups from Rockway to other community centres and alternate locations. Upon identification of options for relocation, a second meeting will be held with each of the groups. It is anticipated that the transition plan will result in a selection of programs being relocated to a particular location where such clusters of programs can be accommodated. Upon identification of sites that can house a cluster of programs, additional thought will be given to the role and promotion of these locations as “gathering places”. A citizen-staff advisory group will be formed to advise on the community wide transition planning, and to inform and involve Centre members, Neighbourhood Associations, and participants at other Community Centres inthe transition plan. This advisory group will consist of Kitchener citizens from a variety of Centres and Neighbourhood Associations. This group will commence in the first quarter of 2010, and continue throughout the year, pending further recommendations by Council concerning the closure of Rockway Centre. 2010-01-08 ïêë FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: As outlined in Option 1 above, assuming decision in March 2010 is to close Rockway Centre. Should the decision in March be to keep the facility open, the operating budget for 2011 will need to be increased by $254,957 to $801,089. In addition, the capital funds currently set aside for capital improvements at Rockway (i.e. $1,035,000) would need to proceed. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the estimated annual operating budget savings of $254,957 be incorporated into the 2010 Operating Budget, to be funded in 2010 through transfer of capital funds currently set aside for Rockway foundation repairs. 2010-01-08 ïêê