8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

1/17

Date: November 17,2011

From: Catherine Brubacher, Director of FinanceITreasurerTo: Estimates Committee

Re: 2012 Budget Documentation

Please find attached the following documents for your review for the EstimatesCommittee meetings:

1) Cost estimate of providing benefits to Non-Social Assistance Recipients2) Presentation on Improving and Upgrading Trail- submitted by Mary Welsh3) Funding Options for Casino Funds Study Group Motions4) Estimates Committee - Follow Up Information

Should you have any questions on the above, or require more information prior to thembeing discussed at Estimates, please do not hesitate to contact me.

:dr

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

2/17

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

3/17

/,0

DATE: November 2, 2011 REPORT NO. PHSSS201152TO: Chair and MembersSocial Services CommitteeFROM: Dan Temprile, General ManagerPublic Health, Safety & Social ServicesPREPARED BY: David Miskiw

Manager of Income and Employment Support

1.0 TYPE OF REPORT CONSENT ITEM [X]ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION [ ]

2.0 TOPICCost estimate of providing benefits to non-social assistance recipients

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONTHAT Report PHSSS2011-52 BE RECEIVED for information.

4.0 PURPOSETo provide Social Services Committee cost estimates for providing socialassistance type benefits to non-social assistance recipients.

5.0 BACKGROUNDAt the Social Services Committee meeting of September 7, 2011 Committeeasked that staff prepare a report estimating the cost of providing social

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

4/17

Report No. PHSSS2011-52Date: November 21 2011 Page 2

assistance benefits to non-social assistance recipients, specifically dentures, butother benefits as well.The current social assistance legislation, the Ontario Works Act does not includeprovisions to issue benefits to non-social assistance recipients. Its predecessor,the General Welfare Act included Supplementary Aid. Supplementary Aid was aprovincially cost shared program which allowed municipalities to provide benefitsto the working poor and those receiving other governmental income such as OldAge Security or Employment Insurance. When the legislation changed in 1997Supplementary Aid was removed leaving an unmet need for this group as theprovince no longer provides funding. .Currently, Social Assistance recipients are eligible for a variety of benefitsincluding health benefits such as dental and drug coverage, employment benefitssuch as employment startup costs or training fees, and other benefits such asmoving costs or accommodation start up benefits.In Brantford/Branf County there is a large group of residents who do not qualifyfor social assistance yet are considered by Statistics Canada to be living belowthe poverty line. Statistics Canada has established Low Income Cut-Offs (LlCO)which is commonly accepted as the poverty line. These measures are based onthe population of the community and family size. The most recent figuresillustrate the LlCOs from 2009.

2009 Low Income Cut-Offs (L1GOs)Family Size Population of 100,000 to 499,9991 person $19,026.002 persons $23,685.003 persons $29,118.004 persons $35,354.005 persons $40,097.006 persons $45,223.00

7 or more persons $50,350.00In order to estimate the cost of providing benefits, the size of this group of peoplemust be estimated. In 2006, the most recent census data available, there were14,454 people living under the LlCO in Brantford/Brant County. This includedthose receiving Ontario Works and ODSP. To estimate the number of peoplenow living below the L1CO but not receiving social assistance, the size of thisgroup was adjusted to reflect the same growth as the Ontario Works and ODSPcaseloads.

2006 2011IODSP 4655 I 23% 5924 I 23%I Ontario Works 3318 I 32% 4225 J 32%

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

5/17

Report No. PHSSS2011-52Date: November 2, 2011J 1 2 -Page 3

Other Income 6481 45% 8300 45%To~1 14454Using this method, we have estimated that there are 8,300 people living belowthe L1CO but not receiving social assistance in BrantfordfBrant County. A costper individual for Ontario Works benefits can be calculated using the 2010expenditures, and then applied to the 8300 to arrive at an estimated cost toprovide benefits to this group.

6.0 CORPORATE POLICY CONTEXTHigh Quality of Life & Caring for All Citizens

7.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCESPrograms such as the City of Ottawa's Essential Health and Social Services andthe Region of Peel's Seniors' Low-Income Dental Program are two examples ofsimilar municipal programs that were referenced during the preparation of thisreport.

8.0 ANALYSISLocal estimates are based on Ontario Works expenditures and assume that theneeds of people living below the L1CO but not receiving social assistance are thesame as those receiving Ontario Works.These estimates do not include prescription drug costs. This benefit iscompletely administered by the province and no data is available for analysis.The estimates also exclude children's dental benefits as services are availablefrom Health Unit programs.

9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONSThere is no cost sharing with the Province to provide these benefits to peopleliving below the L1CO but not receiving social assistance. All costs would be paid100% by the municipalities.The following are the annual costs associated with providing benefits: To provide all health benefits such as dental and drug coverage, employmentbenefits such as employment startup costs or training fees, and other benefits

such as moving costs or accommodation start up benefits would cost $3.23million.

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

6/17

Report No. PHSSS2011-52Date: November 2, 2011I. ~Page 4

To provide only health benefits such as dental or vision coverage would cost$1.21 million. To provide only dental benefits including emergency care for adults, dentures,anesthetic and appliances would cost $0.61 million. To provide only benefits for dentures would cost $0.27 million.

10.0 CONCLUSIONThere is an unmet need in Brantford/Brant County; there are many people wholive below the Low Income Cut Off and do not have any source of benefits tomeet their needs.To establish a program to provide benefits to people who live below the LowIncome Cut Off would be a 100% cost to the Municipality as the Province nolonger provides funding.The estimates are submitted to the Social Services Committee and Council forconsideration.

}

David MiskiwManager, Income & Employment Support Dan Temprile, General ManagerPublic Health, Safety & Social Services

Attachments NACopy to: NA

In adopting this report, is a by-law or agraement mquirect? If $0, it should be referenced in the recommendation section.By-law required 1 yes

Is the necessary by-law or agreement being sent concurrently to Council? 1 yes

[X 1 no( X 1 no[ X 1 no

Agreement(s) or other documents to be signod by Mayor andJor City Clark ] yes

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

7/17

./

MARY E. WELSH . 2 . . . 0310 Mt. Pleasant RoadBranttord, ON N3T tVl Te1:5197530053e-mai l : mewelsh@bfree.on.ca

Novem ber 1 0 , 2 01 1

Dear M ayor Friel and M em bers of Council:

I cannot be presen t a t today's m eeting of the Estim ates Com mittee to speak to the urgent need fo r annualfunding to bring our 68 kilom eters of inner city tra ils back up to an appropriate cond ition .U nfortuna tely, our ex tensive trail system has fa llen w en beh ind other com m unities inth e last ten years,p rim arily because there have not been appropriate and necessary renew al and repair m on ies availab le .Because I cannot be present, p lease fm d attached a presentation that I recen tly m ade to th e T ra ilsCommittee . It expresses m y concerns and the urgent need to a lloca te annual appropriate annual funds ifw e are to rem ain com petitive w ith the trail system s now available in other m un ic ipalities.

Mary Welsh

mailto:mewelsh@bfree.on.camailto:mewelsh@bfree.on.ca

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

8/17

P r e ;Jdf z ; SOM E SUGGEST IONS FOR IM PROVING AND UPGRAD INGf r J y ' 1 r i ' 1j fLdttziHE CITY OF BRAN TFORD 'S EXTEN SIVE TRAIL N ETW ORKInthe 1 980 ts , even up to the tum of the cen tu ry (at the tim e of the N ationa l M illennium Project i.e e , th eOcean Wa te r R ela y) B ra ntf ord 's trai l system was one o f th e b ette r o ne s in t he P rov in c e.

: 2 . . I _/

In m y opinion , how ever, in the last ten years, it has not kept pace with w hat has and continues to happenin other com munities. W e still have an incredible and v ery extensiv e tra il network righ t w ith in the C ity ofBrentford (Ib eliev e at least 6 8 kilom eters of tra ils, inc lu din g th e 2 6 kilom eters of the T rans C anadaTrail).W e are still geograph ically a t the very "hub" of all Ontario tra ils, but it is tim e to address som edeficiencies an d upgrades of w hat w e have .

SOME SUGG ST IO NS(O bv io us ly th ese will have to be prioritized and a five or longer year plan put iIlplace.)

1 ) E stablish street c rossing sign s w here our trails in te rs ec t (c ro ss c ity s tre ets ). S ta rt w i th th os e th atin tersect w ith 26 km s of the T rans Canada T rail.2 ) Update the m apping illall k io sks and repair or give a "face lift" to them , Assu re the "orientation"o f th e n ew m ap pin g is correct.3) D evelop a phased plan for a sp ha ltin g mo st, if no t a ll, of th e intercity tra ils. T his m ak es them trulymulti -use (i .e. r o ll er b la d er s, scooters , ska te boards and any n on -m oto rized c on ven ien ces) a nd , in

the end , reduces an nual m aintenance costs . Expand (w here possib le) their w id th to 1 0 fee t-forsure on th e m ost heavily used.4) D o regu lar annual or h i-annual com prehensive trail surveys - m aybe spring, sum mer or fall.5) R e-estab lish th e n atu re trails in Lions and Wa terw ork s Park s.6) Pub lish a T rail N ew slette r - maybe fo ur /y ea r - s pr in g, s umm e r, fall a nd w in te r.7) Weekly o r b i-w ee kl y group o rie nta tio n rid es .8) Revise o r do an entirely new 8-1I2H x 1 1" (fo lded) inexpensive "T rail Rides Pam phlet" - givingexamples of 1 5-30 minute rides, 1 hour, 2 -3 hour etc., r ight w ithin C ity lim its o r include lon gero ne s u sin g B ra nt C ounty as w ell.9) B ring back the "T ra il Stew ardship" Program .

I am sure there are m any other th ings that could be done bu t let's get on with what is deemed the m ostimportant.O#&r jM4A

Ma ry W e lshSeptem ber 6 , 2 01 1

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

9/17

MEMORANDUMDATE:TO:

November 17J2011Chair and Members of the Estimates Committee

FROM: Catherine BrubacherCity Treasurer, Director of FinanceRE: Funding Options for Casino Funds Study Group Motions

At its Strategic Retreat meeting of April 2, 2011, City Council established a CasinoFunds Study Group to develop a set of principles for the use of Casino Funds. TheGroup met on a number of occasions with various community organizations andAdvisory Committees to gather input on the use of Casino Funds and legacy-typeprojects for the community.The Study Group was preparing to submit a report and recommendations on thoseactivities to City Council. On October 24, 2011, however, City Council approved arecommendation to utilize all unallocated Casino Funds for 2011 and 2012 to financethe additional costs associatedwith the Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre project.On November 7, 2011, Committee of the Whole - Operations and Administration votedto disband the Casino Funds Study Group, but further directed 'that therecommendations of the Casino Funds Study Group that had not yet been presented toCouncil BE REFERRED to Staff for a report back to the Estimates Committee beforethe conclusion of the 2012 budget process, on potential funding sources, thereforevalidating the community involvement'. This recommendationwas approved by Councilon November 14, 2011.The Motions from the Casino Funds Study Group are listed in the attachment to thisreport. Two of those motions have been submitted individually to Council earlier thisyear and approved: On May 24,2011, Council approved the allocation of $10,000 from theCasino Reserve Funds towards Wilfrid Laurier University 1~OthAnniversary; On September 12,2011, Council (with some amendments to the StudyGroup's wording) approved the engagement of Aventus Research Inc.to undertake a 2011 Follow Up Post-Secondary Economic ImpactStudy at a cost not to exceed $30,510, including HST, to be fundedfrom Casino Legacy Reserve Funds.

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

10/17

MEMORANDUMDate: November 17, 20113, IPage 2

The remaining recommendations, that had not been submitted to Council prior to thedisbanding of the Casino Funds Study Group, represent recurring annual allocations forservice expansions beyond the City's base budget. In the absence of any Casinofunding for the next two years and the lack of any other discretionary reserve fundingrelated to the expansion of the cultural community to draw from, the adoption of any ofthe remaining motions from the Study Group would represent one of the followingoptions: 1. Additions to the budget.2. Use of corporate reserve fundsIf, Council chooses Option number 1, the following 2012 allocations would need to beconsidered as annual Unmet Needs during Estimates Committee review: $15,000 to Brantford Accessibility Advisory Committee to implementthe following Legacy Projects:

o AODA Community Engagement Campaign - $4,000o Brantford Accessibility Awards - $1,000o Portable Ramp Subsidy Program - $5,000o BAAC Communication Material - $1,000o PMD and Traffic Safety Education and Awareness Campaign -$4,000

$110,000 to Brantford Cultural Advisory Committee to implement thefollowing Legacy Projects:o Community Cultural Investment Fund / Museum FundingAgreements - $25,000o Cultural Endowment Fund - $75,000o Capacity Building Workshops - $10,000

$35,000 (Equivalent of 1% of Casino Revenue Funding) towards aPublic Art Reserve FundIf these costs are built into the 2012 budget, the following annual amounts would thenalready be included in the base budgets for 2013:

$75,000 to Brantford Cultural Advisory Committee for the CulturalEndowment Fund $35,000 (Equivalent of 1% of Casino Revenue Funding) towards a PublicArt Reserve Fund

And for 2014: $50,000 to Brantford Cultural Advisory Committee for the CulturalEndowment Fund (reduced from $75,000) $35,000 (Equivalent of 1% of Casino Revenue Funding) towards a PublicArt Reserve Fund

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

11/17

MEMORANDUMDate: November 17, 2011

3.2...Page 3

As noted in the Attachment, the Casino Funds Study Group only suggested that theother Legacy projects for 2013 and 2014 be reviewed at a later date for potentialfunding.

With respect to Option number 2, two corporate discretionary reserve funds wererecently replenishedwith 2010 surplus as follows:1. Council Priorities Reserve Fund - $1.6 million2. Contingency Reserve Fund - $1.68 million

Council should be reminded that these reserve funds are replenished only with annualsurplus. As at the third quarter surplus report, we are anticipating $73,000 in surplus. Ifthis amount is indeed realized, there will not be enough funds to replenish thesecorporate reserve funds in 2012. Therefore, caution must be exercised to limitunbudgeted items during both the budget process and during the 2012 calendar year.The yearly costs associated with 2013 and 2014 will have to be funded on an annualbasis from the reserve funds.

In summary, should Council wish to fund any of these initiatives, an increase to thebudget or a contribution from the Council Priorities or Contingency Reserve Funds willbe required.

Attachment: Summary of Motions Passed bythe Casino Funds Study Group

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

12/17

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

13/17

3.4- AO OA Community Engagem ent Cam paign ~ $4,000.(T o e ng ag e B rantfo rd bus in es ses in emb rac in g univ ersa l a cc es sib ility a nd th ere qu ire d c hange s under th e AOOO le gisla tio n and standa rds ) Brantford Accessibility Awards - $1 ,000.(N ew awards program to recognize local businesses that h ave elim inatedbarrie rs t o accessib ilit y w ith in th e ir bus iness) Portable Ramp Subsidy P rog ram ~ $5,000(P rogram would allow a business th at h as a ph ysic al barrier to acc essing th eirbusiness to apply for a $1 50 subsidy towards the purchase of a portablesuitcase ram p for th eir business, signage would be supplied, Program to bec apped at 30 bus inesses per yea r). BAAC Communication Material- $1 ,000.

(Design and production of com munication m aterial that will prom ote theBrant fo rd Access ib ilit y Adv isory Commi tt ee ) PMD and Traffic Safety Education and Awareness Cam paign ~ $4 ,000,(T o educate and m ake th e public aware of th e rules th at govern personalmobil it y devices (PMD) in re la tion t o tra ffic safe ty ,

3. THAT $110,000 BE ALLOCATED from Casino Reserve Funds to BrantfordCultural Adv is ory Comm itte e to implement th e fo llow in g L eg ac y P ro je cts : Community Cultural Investment Fund/Museum Funding Agreements -$25,000(Additional funding for the CCIP Program - and Museum - FundingAgreements) Cultural Endowment Fund ~ $75,000(Creation of an Endowment Fund, to provide arts organizations withsupplementary funding such as project grants, grants to artists orinnovation/start-up grants. The Fund is a recommendation with in theapp roved Mun ic ipal Cult ura l P ian.) Capacity Building W orksh ops - $1 0,000,(W ork sh ops for c ultural sec tor to prom ote and develop th e sec tor as a v iableg enera to r o f ec onom ic a ctiv ity); a ndTHAT 1% of the Casino Revenue Funding received in 201 2, 201 3 and 201 4 BEALLOCATED towards a P ublic Art R eserve Fund; andTHAT in 201 3 th e following Legacy P rojects BE FU NDED from Casino R eserveFunds:

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

14/17

3.5

Cultural Endowm ent Fund - $ 7 5 tO O O(Creation of an Endowment Fund, to provide arts organizations withsupplementary funding such as projec t grants, grants to artists orinnov ation/start-up g rants. Th e Fund is a rec ommendation w ith in th e approv edMunic ip al Cult ura l P lan.): a ndTHAT in 201 4 th e follow ing Legacy P rojec ts BE FU ND ED from Casino R eserveFunds:

Cultural Endowm ent Fund - $50,000.(Creation of an Endowment Fund, to provide arts organizations withsupplementary funding such as project grants, grants to artists orinnovation/start-up g rants. Th e Fund is a re commenda tio n w it h in t he app ro vedMunic ip al Cult ura l P ian,) ; a ndTHAT all oth er Legacy P rojects for 201 3 and 201 4 BE R EVIEW ED at later datef or pot en tia l f unding .

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

15/17

4-.0

BMEMORANDUM

From:Chair and Members of the Estimates Committee /~Catherine Brubacher, City Treasurer, Director of FinanceCfJ t ' t t l ;~November 17, 2011

To:

Date:Re: Estimates Committee - Follow Up Information

At the two previous meetings of the Estimates Committee, certain Members of Council haveasked that additional information be provided to them. Below is the information on some ofthe items requested to date:

1. Impact that Fee Increases have on the budgetFee Increases are included in the "Change to Revenues" section of the Base BudgetSummary (Workbook Tab 2), and were not necessarily broken down by fee on eachdepartmental budget submission, Departments did provide, however, an estimate ofhow the proposed fee increases would impact the budget when the early fees andcharges by-law was sent to Council for approval in August. A summary of the estimatedbudget impact at the time these early fees were approved, is attached asAppendix A.Please note that all but $45,000 of the total impact of the proposed fee increases was tothe User Rate Supported Budget.

2. Outstanding Property TaxesOutstanding property taxes at October 31, 2011 total $20,269,970. This compares to$20;936;130 at the same time last year. The revenue related to these outstandingitems has been recorded in the period in which the payment was due, with the totaloutstanding amount reflected on the City's Balance Sheet as 'Taxes Receivable", Thecollection of these amounts, while improving our cash posltlon, will not increaserevenues further. The penalty and interest revenue on these outstanding amounts ispart of the City's operating budget. This budget increased by $500,000 in 2011 to

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

16/17

4 - . I$2,100,000. The budget for penalty and interest revenue for 2012 has not beenincreased due the following factors:

We currently forecast penalty and interest revenue for 2011 to meet, butnot exceed, the budgeted amount

2011 tax arrears have stabilized, and have been slightly reduced Council approved to issue tax arrears notices 4 times per year, up from 2

in previous years. This will likely lead to tax arrears balances reducingfurther.

3. ContingencyThe annual operating budget includes a contingency provision for both expected andunexpected items that are "operating" in nature. Specific details with regards to thecontingency would need to be discussed in-camera. This budget will be completelyallocated for 2011.The Corporate Contingency Reserve Fund is replenished annually with the prior year'soperating surplus. Any surplus that exceeds 1.5% of the approved net operating budgetis instead transferred to the Council Priorities Reserve Fund. The balance in theCorporate Contingency Reserve Fund is approximately $1.68M. There are no budgetedtransfers to the reserve fund, therefore, the balance will not impacted by the approvalof the 2012 budget unless some ofthe unmet needs are approved with the use of thesemonies as a funding source. With very little surplus expected for 2011, the CorporateContingency Reserve Fund, in.all likelihood, will not be fully replenished in 2012.

8/3/2019 2012 memo Nov. 17

17/17

SCHEDULE "A"

AnticipatedAddit ional Annual

Department Revenue in 2012

TOTAL ALL WATER CONSUMPTION AND OTHER RATES * $570,000TOTAL ALL SEWER CONSUMPTION RATES * $450,000TOTAL ALL SEWAGE SURCHARGE RATES * $3,580TOTAL ALL ARENA RATES $2,675TOTAL ALL FIELD RATES $3,765TOTAL GRETZKY AQUATICS PASSES $14,400TOTAL GRETZKY POOL RENTALS $2,000TOTAL ACTIVITY AND FITNESS ROOMS $2,000TOTAL ALL CEMETERY $8,100TOTAL COMMUNITY CENTRE FEES $1,050TOTAL HARMONY SQUARE FEES $250TOTAL PARKS & PROPERTIES FEES $2,145TOTAL ALL BELL HOMESTEAD FEES $2,000TOTAL ALL GOLF FEES $5,580TOTAL ALL BUILDING DEPT FEES * $146,000TOTAL ALL CLERK'S DEPT FEES $245

TOTAL ALL REVENUE INCREASES $1,213,790TOTAL TAX SUPPORTED REVENUE INCREASES $ 44,210

USER RATE SUPPORTED