County of Haliburton

County of Haliburton

Special Meeting of County Council Agenda

Wednesday, November 25, 2020 1:00 P.M. County Council Chambers NOTICE: This meeting will be held electronically in accordance with section 238 of the Municipal Act, 2001. Members of the public may observe the proceedings by accessing the live webcast at: https://youtu.be/dR61fEFpswQ

Page WARDEN'S OPENING REMARKS ROLL CALL ADOPTION OF AGENDA DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE

THEREOF ITEMS OF BUSINESS 2 - 140 Service Delivery Review - Final Report

Strategy Corp CONFIRMING BYLAW 141 By-law 4021 - being a By-law to Confirm the Proceedings of the

November 25, 2020 Special Meeting of Haliburton County Council ADJOURNMENT

of 141

https://youtu.be/dR61fEFpswQ

Final Report

Haliburton Municipalities –

Service Delivery Review

November 2020

©STRATEGYCORP2020

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp of 141

2CONFIDENTIAL: DRAFT FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

Executive Summary

Next Steps

Appendix A: Initiative Deep Dive

Appendix B: Benefit by Municipality

Table of Contents

1

2

3

4

3

16

18

131

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R


Executive Summary

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R



Summary of Scope and ResultsExecutive Summary

• Funded by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Municipal Modernization Fund, the Haliburton municipalities retained StrategyCorp to conduct a service delivery review.

• All aspects of the municipalities’ administration and operations were in scope.

• The primary focus of this service delivery review is to understand, identify, and evaluate opportunities to achieve a more efficient and effective service delivery model across the Haliburton municipalities while maintaining adequate service levels.

• In phase one, we delivered a 235-page report containing:o 66 different service profiles and organization-wide profiles

for all municipalities; and o Over 200 identified potential improvement opportunities

spanning the entire organization, as well as benchmarking.

• 12 initiatives were identified as high-priority. This report details the potential benefits and considerations of each of those initiatives.

Project Scope

The recommendations in this report are based on an analysis of initiatives identified by staff, and are supported by external research

into leading practice and comparators. Estimates are indicative.

Consultation Process

• We would like to thank staff and Council members from each municipality as they were critical to developing the final report, as well as their support and engagement during the process.

• In total, we had over 100 interviews and/or workshops with Council members, staff, and community stakeholders to develop made-in-Haliburton approaches. This included approximately:

o 35+ Council interviews; o 60+ staff interviews and workshops; and o 5+ community stakeholder interviews.

• This thorough engagement has allowed StrategyCorp to co-design initiatives that reflect the needs and realities of Haliburton.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R



Summary of ResultsExecutive Summary

Our conclusions…R

esu

lts

Operational efficiencies: Twelve high-priority initiatives were developed that would represent over $900k in annual net operating and capital savings when fully phased in.• 5 operational improvement initiatives would

drive efficiencies in back-office functions• 6 Improved customer facing initiatives would

deliver measurable improvements to customer facing services such as:

• Roads, bridges, and drainage;• Building, septic, and bylaw services;• Economic development;• Planning; and• Waste services

$900K

Productivity gains: Proposed process improvementswould yield projected staff productivity gains on the order of $200K. Additional productivity gains were identified, but not quantified, due to data limitations.

$200K

Infrastructure efficiencies: Co-ordinated approaches to maintaining key municipal infrastructure (roads, bridges, and waste management) will meet the needs of residents at a lower cost for communities.

A commitment to thoughtful implementation: Recommendations include measures to facilitate on-going decision-making on collaborative projectsin a transparent and productive manner.

Enhanced services: to improve identified gaps in existing service levels, 5 new positions are identified of which 3 are projected to be cost neutral due to resulting new revenues and cost reductions.

5 FTEs

We report on a range of opportunities that could be phased in over five years. Collectively, when fully implemented, they would deliver net savings through a balanced program of:

• Operational efficiencies and productivity gains; and

• Investments to fill gaps/enhance service levels in several customer-facing departments.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R



Throughout the process, key themes emerged that informed work to identify improvement opportunities:

• Willingness to collaborate: Council and staff both expressed an openness to more collaboration or sharing of services, where warranted by business-case. Indeed, it is our perception that interest at the County Council level increased over the course of our study. Some attributed this to learnings from the experience of collaboration during the COVID-19 crisis. However, in all cases, there is an expectation that any new shared arrangements would have clear terms, KPIs, and roles and responsibilities to ensure that they are fair and equitable to participating communities. The clarity of some existing sharedservices, such as IT, should be increased. Future shared services need clear service level agreements from the beginning.

• Growing population and service demands: Since the preparation of our Phase One report, continued rapid growth in population, attributable to COVID-19, have been reported by participants. Inbound migration, combined with “full year” usage of what would otherwise be seasonal properties, has been observed in all areas of the County, with a resulting impact on demand for and usage of services. For example, waste disposal facilities have been observed to be operating at peak summer levels continuously since March 2020. Similarly there has been heightened need for by-law enforcement activity. There has also been a continued increase in the expectations of residents for services that more closely approximate urban levels of service.

• Opportunities for collaboration could be improved: Participants report that there are many instances of intermunicipal collaboration currently under way. We heard in many different contexts that these efforts are made more difficult by a lack of a clear mandate and decision-making structure, and participants generally suffer from work being done “off the corner of the desk.” There appear to be opportunities to better enable staff-led initiatives.

Current State Findings Executive Summary

Service Delivery Improvement Opportunities

Council and Staff

Interviews

Client Data and

Documents

Service Profile Information

SCOPE Workshop

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT)

Financial Analysis

Benchmark Analysis

Operating Environment

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R



Low

imp

act

Hig

h im

pac

t

Collaboration Shared Services

Integration

Each municipality maintains local control, but effort made to level up to highest efficiency and service through sharing and adopting best practices.• Easy to implement • May not yield the

greatest improvements

More active approach to collaboration among partners through resource sharing, and shared service delivery among willing partners.

• Requires greater compromise

• May yield higher benefits

• Potentially more difficult to implement

The Opportunity for Collaboration

Priorities Priorities are set by council, inherently local, and subject to competing demands.

Legacy Assets

Could municipalities coordinate assets to improve services? How does the current condition of assets present opportunities for or barriers to collaboration?

Policies Could specific policies be improved or harmonized?

Processes Could existing processes be improved or harmonized, or new processes established to improve service?

People Could skills and capabilities be improved, and different resourcing models for services be utilized?

Equipment Could municipalities collaborate on the procurement, utilization, and pooling of specialized equipment?

Resources The financial resources available to maintain the operating and capital budgets.

Spectrum of Collaboration

Migration of service to one provider, whomever that may be (County, special purpose body, lead municipality).• Highest level of

compromise required• Governance tools• Yield the greatest

potential improvements

• Politically and operationally feasible improvement options are constrained as it involves greater surrender of control

Opportunity Areas

For each initiative, we evaluated the opportunities to collaborate using the key opportunity areas outlined below and assessed the degree to which collaboration is feasible for each of the Haliburton municipalities. Opportunity areas such as local priorities and resources were deemed out of scope.

Executive Summary

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R



There are different approaches for voluntary intermunicipal collaboration on service delivery, ranging from ad-hoc collaboration to more formal arrangements. For each initiative we explored the potential structures as outlined below and identified which structure would be the most practical considering the needs of the municipalities.

Models for Intermunicipal Delivery: A Range of OptionsExecutive Summary

For each initiative, we considered how the range of delivery options would satisfy a range of factors, including:

✓ The potential of a model to deliver cost savings and the materiality of those savings;

✓ The existence of capacity to deliver (or the need to create new capacity) via in-house or contracted services;

✓ The ability of a model to continue to meet local service responsibilities and expectations and deliver on customer satisfaction;

✓ The ability of a model to deliver appropriate accountability and policy leadership, without an undue burden on elected leaders or senior management;

✓ The effect of a model on the existing workforce, including volunteers; and

✓ The fit of a model with the geographic realities of Haliburton, including the operational challenges of serving the large geographical area.

✓ Other risks inherent to the initiative (if any).

Consistent with the terms of reference, this Report does not consider overarching change to governance structures, such as amalgamation.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R



Investment Portfolio: Overview

EXPENDITURES VS. SERVICE LEVELS

More Very Positive Positive Invest

(Out of Scope)

Same Positive Status Quo

Less Cut

Less Same More

EXPENDITURES

SER

VIC

E LE

VEL

Target Areas for Assessment

In assessing initiatives to achieve efficiencies, the following matrix describes the areas of focus for defining what kinds of initiatives would be in scope for the review and what initiatives would be assessed.

Possible areas of exploration would include:

• More for Less (Better Service Level for Less Expenditures): This is the ideal initiative as it provides a greater amount of service to residents while reducing current expenditures.

• More for Same (Better Service Level with the Same Expenditures): This arrangement is acceptable because it still provides a greater service to residents with the same amount of budget applied.

• Same for Less (Same Service Level for Less Expenditures): This arrangement is acceptable as it allows for the same service to residents but with an achievement of cost efficiencies.

• More for More (Better Service Level for More Expenditure): This is out of scope for this review as it is an investment with no clear cost efficiencies gained.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Models for Intermunicipal Delivery: A Range of OptionsExecutive Summary

Options

Collaboration Shared Services Integration

Local

Two or More Haliburton Municipalities Cooperate

on Bilateral Shared Service Delivery

One Haliburton Municipality Provides Service to Some or All

Haliburton Municipalities

County Provides Service to all Municipalities on shared

services agreement

County Provides Service to Municipalities on levy

Municipal Service Corporation Provides Service to Some or All

Municipalities

Municipality/Org Outside of Provides Service to a

Municipality

Governance

• Locally controlled• Where there is

collaboration, it is ad-hoc

• Common Haliburton model at present

• This would require a structure for joint decision making, such as an intermunicipal board

• Could also just be done by an informal Steering Committee

• This would require a contribution agreement and an MOU to set out service levels


• This would be viewed as a migration of service to the County, funded by the levy

• Utilizes existing governance structure


• May be perceived by public as duplicating County role


Observations

• By observation of staff, insufficient to capture all the benefits offered by collaboration opportunities “off the corner of the desk”

• Leverages existing or excess operational capacity

• At some point, decisions about service levels or dispute resolution escalate beyond the capacity of staff to resolve without political level decision making

• Utilizes an existing delivery structure

• This option is contingent on one municipality having the operational capacity to offer the service

• May require creation of “all new” capacity at County if not an expansion of a current service

• Services provided by the individual municipalities could be consolidated at the County

• May require creation of “all new” capacity at County if not an expansion of a current service

• Services provided by the individual municipalities could be consolidated at the County

• Corporation could contract for delivery or develop its own delivery resources

• There are overhead costs associated with implementing this model, including time burdens

• This is already used for the County’s social services

• The best fit for partnering is “where you find it” based on business case and need not be restricted to inside Haliburton

Outlined below are the potential service delivery models to be considered for each improvement initiative. The governance considerations and general observations have been included for each. For each improvement opportunity identified through our Spectrum of Collaboration framework, we assessed the viability of the service delivery structure using the models described below.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Major Categories of Cost SavingsExecutive Summary

For the purposes of our analysis, we have identified three broad categories of cost savings:

“Dark Green” Savings

“Dark Green” savings are POTENTIAL DIRECT SAVINGS.

Common identifying features of Dark Green cost savings include:

• Creation of tangible bottom line reductions

• Defined actions that are sourced from the profit and loss directly

• Process improvements that lead to cost and/or asset reductions

“Light Green” Savings

“Light Green” savings are POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY GAINS.

Common identifying features of Light Green cost savings include:

• Creation of improved productivity or positive changes in operations

• Creation of intangible cost avoidances

• Process improvements that over time can become cost savings

New Revenues

New Revenues are POTENTIAL INCREASED ANNUAL REVENUES.

Common identifying features of New Revenues include:

• Creation of revenue-generating opportunities

• Focus on cost recoveries over cost savings

Identified revenues and savings could be used to reinvest in municipal services. Productivity gains could be used to allow for municipal staff to complete more value-added work.

New Revenues: $75,000 Direct Savings: $900,000 Productivity Gains: $210,000

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


The quantifiable benefits of each initiative have been categorized by either annual operating and capital savings, productivity gains and/or potential new annual revenues.

Summary of Initiatives Executive Summary

Initiative Description Revenues, Dark and Light Green Savings

Potential Increased Annual Rev.

Potential Direct Savings /Costs“Dark Green”

Potential Productivity Gains

“Light Green”

Roads, Bridges, and Drainage • Implement capital bundling, coordinating engineering consulting services and formalize joint

planning of road maintenance and planning. $ - $510,000 $ -

Fire Services • Integrate fire training and prevention staff and explore a joint training facility. $ - $ - $ -

Waste Management • Create structures to coordinate approaches to large waste policy and operational challenges. $ - $25,000 $ -

Coordinated Building, Septic Services, and Bylaw Services

• Explore either shared service agreements for hard to service areas or integrate services to improve service levels.

$ - $40,000 $ -

Planning Services • Standardize processes and fees, create a joint planning position to support administrative work

and reduce third-party expenses, and use one Official Plan with Secondaries Plans as needed to reduce expenditures and improve productivity.

$74,000 ($9,000) $132,000

Economic Development • Create a County position to support coordination and increased service levels. $ - ($200,000) $ -

Collaborative Procurement • Hire a procurement specialist to support the Haliburton municipalities achieve savings through

strategic and collaborative sourcing. $ - $372,000 $ -

Integrated Digital Strategy • Create and establish processes to support the digitization of municipal services across the

municipalities. $ - $ - $79,000

Coordinating Legal Services • Create an in-house legal position to reduce costs while increasing service levels. $ - $52,000 $ -

Human Resources Coordination • Pool employee benefits to reduce costs and explore sharing knowledge and services between

municipalities. $ - $102,000 $ -

Communications • Hire a Communications Officer/Grant Writer to support all municipalities’ internal and external

communications and support increased grant revenues $ - $ - $ -

Coordination • Create structures across the Councils and staff levels to implement working groups and other

collaborative initiatives$ - $ - $ -

TOTAL $74,000 $903,000 $210,000

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Phased ImplementationExecutive Summary

We do not recommend trying to do everything at once. Implementation will be dependent on a number of factors, not the least of which is each community buying into each initiative and coordinating necessary approvals among staff and Councils. The chart groups initiatives as short, medium, and longer-term. Senior leadership and Council are best positioned to decide actual sequencing of events. This draft is representative only, and based on a number of factors, including our assessment of:

• The potential for the initiative to yield savings, and the materiality of those savings in the big picture relative to the effort required;

• The need to prioritize to take advantage of available management time for special projects; and

• Whether there are other factors that make it urgent, such as compliance requirements.

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Onwards

Short Term Initiatives: • Communications• Coordination • Roads, Bridges and Drainage • Economic Development • Collaborative Procurement • Waste Management

Longer Term Initiatives:• Integrated Digital Strategy • Coordinated Legal Services• Human Resource Coordination

Medium Term Initiatives: • Fire Services • Building, Septic Services, and Bylaw Services• Planning Services

Ongoing implementation



Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Benefits/Costs over Time Executive Summary

The potential benefits of these initiatives will be realized overtime. Based on the groupings of initiatives on the previous slide, we have projected the benefits from 2022 - 2026 and beyond. Depending on the initiative, we have estimated it will take one to three years to realize the benefits. The chart below demonstrates benefits if no interventions were taken.

-400000

-200000

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Revenues and Grants Dark Green Savings Light Green Savings

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


• County Council is well positioned to lead on matters of collaboration, but concurrence of local municipalities will always be required to “get to a yes.”

• This will require transparent processes and strong staff reports to support decision-making.

• The review process should:

➢ Consider proposals based on common definitions of success (see page 8);

➢ Facilitate the creation of an agreed upon fact base;

➢ Only bring forward matters for decision when the relevant fact base has been assembled;

➢ Be multi-disciplinary and involve all disciplines relevant to a decision; and

➢ Avoid surprises.

Before consideration of Council, there could easily be 20-25 municipal officials from each of the five organizations that could provide input to the decision-making support material and staff reports.

CAO CAO CAO CAO CAO

Subject Experts

Subject Experts

Subject Experts

Subject Experts

Subject Experts

Council Council Council Council Council

Successful Implementation will Require Attention to Process DesignExecutive Summary

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


CAOs’ Committee

Implementation Committee

Intermunicipal Working Groups

CAO CAO CAO CAO CAO

Subject Experts

Subject Experts

Subject Experts

Subject Experts

Subject Experts


This approach will move the current siloed intermunicipal cooperation model to a formalized matrix design that will facilitate shared services and cooperation initiatives.

Formalizing Intermunicipal Structures Executive Summary

Outlined below will establish a new structure of intermunicipal cooperation and process.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141

Next Steps

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Next Steps Project Next Steps

1Receive feedback on draft report and recommendations, and identify additional information requested to support Haliburton municipalities in moving forward.

3 Prepare council presentation and public report.

4 Post public report before MMAH deadline.

2 Revise Final Report and recommendations.

Below are the next steps in the project, which satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Municipal Modernization Fund.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141

Appendix A: Initiative Deep Dive

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Table of ContentsAppendix A: Initiative Deep Dive

CATEGORY INITIATIVE PAGE NUMBER

Public Facing

Roads, Bridges, and Drainage 21Fire Services 32Waste Management 39Coordinated Building, Septic Services, and Bylaw Services 47Planning Services 60Economic Development 76

Back Office

Collaborative Purchasing 88Integrated Digital Strategy 97Coordinated Legal Services 103Human Resources Coordination 112Communications 120

Implementation Coordination 124

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141

Roads, Bridges, and Drainage

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative OverviewRoads, Bridges, and Drainage

Description

Benefits Overview

Total Annual Savings

County of Haliburton $225,000-$444,000

Algonquin Highlands $42,000-$70,000

Dysart et al $83,000-$162,000

Highlands East $68,000-$133,000

Minden Hills $92,000-$177,000

Total $510,000-$986,000

Other Benefits • Should Haliburton decide to create a Master Transportation Plan, there are

future benefits that could be achieved through collaboration, such as savings on labour and equipment, reduced cost of operations, and improved overall road conditions

The Roads department is one of the highest expenditure items in municipalities, however there are opportunities to reduce this cost through increased collaboration. There are two key shared services opportunities that can help to decrease costs, which include capital project bundling (e.g. bridge maintenance) and the sharing of engineering design and consulting services. An additional long-term collaboration opportunity exists in the creation of a Master Transportation Plan to help gain efficiencies, identify areas to explore future cost savings and coordinate ideal road management arrangements. There are direct savings that can be estimated from the implementation of the shared service opportunities, with consideration for the Master Transportation Plan in the long-term to increase collaboration and road network optimization.

Spectrum of CollaborationShared Services

Initiative(bundling)

Collaboration Integration

Municipal Approvals

Municipalities approve capital projects at the same time to experience cost savings.

1

Option One: Capital Bundling

Option Two: Engineering Contracting

Municipalities use joint procurement specialist for engineering project.

2

Option Three: Joint Planning

Municipalities approve shared service agreements for road operations between municipalities.

3

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


PEOPLE

• Create and implement public works working groups to ensure stronger and more consistent collaboration between municipal departments.

PROCESS AND GOVERNANCE

• The Haliburton municipalities will have a process in place to effectively collaborate in the procurement and delivery of capital construction before the season begins, achieving competitive market rates from local suppliers.

Initiative Overview Roads, Bridges, and Drainage

OPERATING CONSIDERATIONS

Activities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 +

Create intermunicipal public works working group

Work with the procurement specialist to bundle capital projects and engineering consulting

Formalize collaboration on Haliburton roads through working group

RISKS AND BARRIERS

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

• Collaboration: To achieve savings in the roads, bridges and drainage initiative, the Haliburton municipalities will have to increase formalized collaboration between municipalities. This could be challenging for the departments to find the capacity to formalize collaboration. However, the coordination initiative is meant to support intermunicipal coordination needed for the implementation of these initiatives. In addition, an in-house procurement specialist (as outlined in the Procurement Initiative) would also support implementation of this initiative.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Current State Summary: the Roads DepartmentRoads, Bridges, and Drainage

There are many key areas of consideration identified during the current state across the different Roads departments, which have implications for identifying collaborative and service sharing arrangements:

Some collaboration exists between municipalities today – There is currently some collaboration that exists between communities, such as road maintenance agreements (particularly in the winter) and mechanic work. Many activities are managed individually today, such as asset management planning, bridge and culvert management, and engineering services.

Most engineering work across the County is contracted out –Currently, the County is the only municipality with internal engineering support. Most engineering services are conducted via contract and managed separately by each municipality on an as-needed basis.

Haliburton’s large geography has implications for sharing –Haliburton has over 4,000 km2 of land, with over 1300 km2 of roads in total being maintained. This is split amongst the municipalities. This large expanse of maintenance required suggests sharing may be an ideal arrangement due to proximity of some municipalities to certain roads over others.

The Roads Department has the largest overall expenditure for all municipalities – Each municipality spends on average 34% of its budget on roads and is seeing on average a 10.88% YOY increase in expenditures. Cost savings in this area could have big implications for a reduction in budget expenditures.

Bundling capital projects, such as bridge maintenance and inspections, will help reduce

expenditures and improve coordination of closures and resident impacts.

Pursuing joint tendering on engineering services between municipalities, such as design and

consulting work, will demonstrate cost savings and better rates through the pooling of resources.

A more coordinated approach to route and transportation planning will enable the best

division of roads maintenance responsibilities and arrangements and identify areas of harmonization.

Capital Project Bundling Shared Engineering Contract Services Road Network Planning

These observations have led to the identification of the following groups of improvements areas, with clear hypotheses for how each can help lead to savings:

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Capital Project Bundling

• Capital infrastructure projects are challenging for smaller municipalities: Civil infrastructure remains a burden for many rural municipalities. A vast inventory of water and wastewater systems, drainage works, and rural roads and bridges must be supported by small populations and limited fiscal resources. Across Ontario, hundreds of small bridges need repair or replacement. For example, individual bridge projects can be a major financial burden for a township or municipality.

• Municipalities can coordinate to find vendors: Similar projects (preservation, rehabilitation or replacement projects) from different municipalities are bundled into an overarching evaluation, design, construction, financing and maintenance initiative. They are tendered to a single general contractor or bid consortium, in a time-limited, set-price contract. The winning bid consortium uses repetitive processes and standardized designs to effect savings, often employing local delivery agents bound to centrally determined design specifications and execution provisions.

• Bundling can lead to significant cost savings: Properly structured capital project bundles can save tremendous costs through economies of scale, as well as shorten the timelines that it would take to build or rehabilitate a certain number of structure if they were completed separated.

• Decreases risk exposure: As there are multiple projects being completed in a portfolio, the risk per project decreases as the risk is spread over multiple projects and for multiple municipalities.

Examples of Project Bundling1,2,3:

• A report from Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation found that municipal governments could save between 13 and 20 per cent on bridges and culverts using the bundled model.

• This is done commonly in American County and State governments and they are seeing large cost savings. Examples include:

• Erie County, New York, and Indiana Department of Transportation, which saved over $50M due to project bundling.

• Nebraska, working with specific County governments, saved over $40M over ten years.

• Missouri ambitiously looked to replace 554 bridges in five years bundled into a mega design-build contract. The contractor engaged over 100 contractors and subcontractors. The bridge replacements were completed a year early and came in under budget.


Ontario Good Roads Association recommends that municipalities explore project bundling, defined as the awarding of a single contract for several maintenance (preservation), rehabilitation, and/or replacement projects, for a slate of analogous or “generic” projects. Outlined below are common challenges faced by municipalities that can be mitigated by project bundling, the benefits, and examples.

1 OGRA 2017 Bridge Bundling Excerpt2 Daniel D’Angelo, P.E. Project Bundling – Bundling Saves Bundles. ARA3 https://rccao.com/news/files/Oct-16-2013-qpbriefing.pdf

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Estimated Potential Savings with Capital Project BundlingBelow is an overview of the approximate costs for bridge and culvert maintenance (preservation), rehabilitation, and/or replacement projects using the municipalities data for the past 3-4 years. It is noted that data was not always consistent across the municipalities risking the accuracy of the data, and so where gaps existed, estimates and assumptions were made.


Roads, Bridges and Culvert Capital Projects (e.g. Repairs, Inspections, Installations, Maintenance, Resurfacing, etc.)*

2018 2019 2020 Avg. Yearly Cost 5% Savings** 10% Savings**

County of Haliburton $2,270,000 $2,665,000 $8,198,000 $4,378,000 $219,000 $438,000

Algonquin Highlands $515,250 $609,000 - $562,000 $28,000 $56,000

Dysart et al $1,630,000 $1,110,000 ~$2,000,000 $1,580,000 $79,000 $158,000

Highlands East* $1,190,000 $1,650,000 $1,160,000 $1,300,000 $65,000 $130,000

Minden Hills $920,000 $788,000 $3,600,000 $1,700,000 $85,000 $170,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL SAVINGS: $476,000 $952,000

*Sourced from municipal budget reports – costs show estimated budgeted capital project expenditures, not actual. Numbers are approximate and were rounded for ease of calculation.** While an estimation for savings was made using the 13% to 20% range based on the Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation’s report1, a conservative estimate of 5% and 10% was made for the purposes of the analysis.

1 County of Wellington Bridge Study. 2013.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Support for Shared Engineering in Rural Municipalities Sharing in the procurement of engineering services for the Roads department specifically has significant benefits and support to consider for the generation of cost-savings opportunities:


Legislative Requirements and Funding1

• The safety and maintenance requirements for Ontario bridges is outlined in the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, 1990, Regulation 104-97, Standards for Bridges.

• All municipal bridges must be inspected every two years by a professional engineer using the Ministry of Transportation’s Ontario Structure Inspection Manual.

• Future provincial funding is conditional upon municipalities demonstrating that a full range of financing and revenue generation tools have been explored and compliance with legislative requirements.

• Any infrastructure funding requested from the province needs to demonstrate how it fits in with a detailed asset management plan, ensuring that resources are going towards the most critical needs.

Collaborative Purchasing Saves Costs2,3

• Approximately 32% of Ontario’s municipalities participate in a group purchasing and procurement arrangement, including the procurement of engineering services.

• As demonstrated in the Procurement section of the report, municipalities could save between 5-20% when participating in group, or shared, procurement.

• Collaborative purchasing enables significant savings through pooling of resources to gain economies of scale.

• Other municipalities, such as the City of London, are continuously assessing specialized areas, such as engineering services to review roads maintenance, to determine revenue enhancement opportunities, cost avoidances, or real budget savings.

1 https://www.ontario.ca/page/building-together-guide-municipal-asset-management-plans2 https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=urbancentre-reports3 http://www.london.ca/city-hall/budget-business/budget/Documents/2015BudgetExecutiveSummary(IncludingKeyConsiderations)(Secured).pdf

• Haliburton could realize significant cost savings through the sharing of engineering design and consulting services for regular maintenance and inspections of bridges, etc. as required every two years. Due to the regularity of the inspections, this can be managed via a single process.

• Budget cycles may need to be better aligned across all municipalities to ensure approval and planning can be conducted in tandem.

Implications

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Third-Party Engineering FirmsBelow is a list of engineering firms that have been secured to support capital projects in the past three years. Smaller and rural municipalities will typically hold engineering firms on retainer to ensure familiarity with the jurisdiction and terrain1. This list demonstrates the overlap in engineering firms secured by each of the municipalities and demonstrates the potential savings by sharing design and consulting work.


Third Party Costs by Municipality (past 3 years)

2017 2018 2019 2020 Avg. Yearly Cost Potential Savings (est. 5%)

County of Haliburton

$42,000 $208,000 $101,000 - $117,000 $6,000

Algonquin Highlands

- $295,250 $245,000 - $270,000 $14,000

Dysart et al $69,750 $69,750 $69,750 $69,750 $70,000 $4,000

Highlands East - $4,050 $66,710 $98,030 $56,000 $3,000

Minden Hills $151,400 $107,388 $175,000 - $145,000 $7,000

TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS: $34,000

Procurement Savings from Joint Tendering• As demonstrated in the Procurement Initiative section, there are significant savings that could result through joint tendering in the Roads departments, with savings ranging

from 5 to 20% (a conservative estimate of 5% was applied to the above analysis). • Further analysis could be done to explore hiring a joint engineer instead of outsourcing. This could result in additional cost savings.

1 https://iog.ca/docs/1999_March_pubworks_mun.pdf

*Total cost is $279,000 to date – split the costs evenly across 4 years for the purposes of the analyses

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Current Collaboration between Haliburton Municipalities on RoadsAn overview of the agreements in place across Haliburton related to roads maintenance is presented below:


Municipality Border with Financial Arrangement Maintained by Road Name Year

Current Agreements

Highlands East/Dysart

The municipality who manages the road incurs the

cost of managing it. The municipalities meet each year to review the costs.

Dysart Koshlong Lake Road annualDysart Universal Road summer

Highlands East Universal Road winterHighlands East Minnicock Lake Road annualHighlands East Fallowfield Road annual

Dysart Buxton Road annualDysart Outram Road annual

Highlands East Grace River Road annualDysart Loon Lake Road summer

Highlands East Clarke Road summerMinden Hills Highlands East - Minden Hills/Highlands East Line Drive annual

County

Algonquin Highlands** The municipalities invoice the County monthly for maintenance. Costs are

managed per pass.

County/Algonquin HighlandsCounty Roads 8*, 12*,

39*, 11, 13County - summer; Algonquin Highlands - winter

Dysart County/Dysart County Road 19 County - summer; Dysart - winterHighlands East County/Highlands East County Roads 5, 9, 15,48 County - summer; Highlands East - winterMinden Hills County/Minden Hills County Roads 2, 20 County - summer; Minden Hills - winter

Fringe Roads (partnerships, but

no agreement)Minden Hills

Algonquin Highlands*** - Minden Hills Brady Lake Road -Algonquin Highlands - Minden Hills Crooked House -Algonquin Highlands - Algonquin Highlands West Road -Algonquin Highlands - Algonquin Highlands Tulip Road -

Dysart - Minden Hills/Dysart Soyers Lake Road -Highlands East - Minden Hills Pringle Road -

KM of Roads Maintained by Municipality | AH: 120 km | HE: 215 km | MH: 275 km | Dysart: 304.5 km | County: 395.4 km

*County roads managed all add up to 40 km of roads (12% of County network)**The County maintains one of Algonquin Highlands’ roads***Algonquin Highlands shares additional fringe roads with the District of Muskoka

While there is collaboration on fringe road maintenance, service agreements appear to be managed between municipalities individually and on an ad-hoc basis. There does not appear to be overall insight or consistency on what kind of maintenance each municipality conducts and/or how the agreements are organized. This limited coordination may miss opportunities to work together to address county-wide roads maintenance and transportation challenges and identify better ways of delivering roads service delivery collectively.

Observations for Haliburton

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Support for Joint Planning on Roads Management and TransportationRoads, Bridges, and Drainage

1 http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/Portals/15/Documents/Roads/COMasterTransportationPlan-final.pdf

2 https://www.countyofessex.ca/en/county-government/resources/Documents/Essex_Windsor_Regional_Transportation_Master_Plan.pdf

Many municipalities have created a Master Transportation Plan, which may include elements of roads management, transit and/or active transportation planning. The goal of these plans is to identify long-term infrastructure developments that support the creation of safe and efficient road networks and to measure and track all actions that help achieve that goal over time.

The benefits of creating a joint long-term Master Transportation Plan include:1) Identification of collaboration opportunities that lead to cost savings on items such as labour and equipment;2) Targeted implementation of infrastructure and asset development projects that that align with a larger integrated transportation approach to support residents; and3) Consistency in tracking and progress against strategic goals that can be compared and benchmarked with other municipalities to ensure accountability.

Oxford County1

The County of Essex has created three plans related to transportation: (1) The Essex-Windsor Regional Transportation Master Plan (2005-2021); (2) The Regional Transit Study identifying transit opportunities (2011); and (3) the County Wide Active Transportation System Master Plan to promote bicycling trails and multi-use pathways (2012). The Essex-Windsor Master Transportation Plan addressed key transportation system challenges, including the roadway network, as it was concluded that the County, City, and Towns needed to collectively plan for capacity enhancements and developments to prepare for an anticipated burden on the system. This burden included high projected population (92,000 additional residents) and job increases (estimated 53,000 new jobs) by 2021. As part of the plan, one strategy was to enhance capacity of all roads and minimize network deficiencies, with the capital costs being divided as follows: $133M for County roads, $113 for City of Windsor roads, and the remaining $23 M to other municipal (LaSalle and Leamington) roads.

Oxford County maintains a Master Transportation Plan, which was originally created in 2009 and assesses modifications and projected demands on the system, as well as mitigation strategies, to 2038. It is reviewed every five years and leverages information from many key Oxford County documents, including the Official Plan, Roads and Bridge Needs Studies, Trails Master Plan, and Public Transportation Plan. In 2009, the Master Transportation Plan included a road rationalization assessment that reviewed the overall County and local road networks and made a rationalization recommendation on which municipality will be responsible for which roads. It included a series of proposed roads management transfers with a full cost analysis and projected benefits for each proposed transfer, and a collective negotiation process to determine what recommended roads would and would not be accepted for transfer. A total of 6 roads were recommended to be transferred up to the County level of jurisdiction from the local municipalities and a total of 15 roads were recommended to be transferred down to the lower-tier municipalities from the County.

Considerations for Haliburton

• While Haliburton has an active transportation plan and a public transportation plan, it is recommended that a long-term Master Transportation Plan is also considered for completion, with an assessment of the road network and a collaborative rationalization of the road maintenance agreements in place to ensure a strategic approach to roads management

• The Master Transportation Plan could help to assess any geographic constraints with transportation as a whole and help to identify the best arrangement for the greatest efficiencies in roads management. It can help ensure all measures, such as the Pavement Index Score, are optimized and the greatest division of resources for service delivery is attained

County of Essex2

Overview

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Roads, Bridges, and Drainage

This initiative has a range of intermunicipal delivery options from collaboration to shared services to roads, bridges, and drainage services.


Local

Two or More Haliburton Municipalities Cooperate on

Bilateral Shared Service Delivery

One Haliburton Municipality Provides Service to Some or All Haliburton Municipalities


services agreement


Municipal Service Corporation Provides Service to Some or

All Municipalities


Municipality

Benefits • A Master Transportation

Plan would align municipal activities to ensure optimization of service delivery

Drawbacks• Would include increased

costs to create the plan and conduct studies

Benefits • Significant cost savings

achieved through bundling of projects and shared engineering services

Drawbacks• Requires an alignment

with budget cycles

NA NANA

NANA

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Fire Services

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative Overview Fire Services

Municipal Approvals

Other Benefits • There would be increased standardization of training.• It is more likely that a training facility could be built within Haliburton if all

municipalities participated. This would improve training service levels for all communities.

Description

Generally, we were informed that the fire services departments currently collaborate well together and that there appeared to be only limited opportunities for improvement of any kind through increased collaboration. Drawing on examples from other counties, however, there may be opportunities to explore increased voluntarily integration of training and fire prevention services. Such measures would have the potential to either decrease costs or allow for improved levels of service at similar cost. Lastly, we were informed that there is a perceived need for a purpose-built facility for specialized training. We understand that at least on local municipality is exploring the construction of such a facility. It would appear to be beneficial if the fire services explored a shared funding and operating agreement for such a facility.


Initiative


Benefits Overview

Savings/Costs Algonquin Highlands $38,000

Dysart et al $28,000

Highlands East ($31,000)

Minden Hills $27,000

Participating municipalities approve shared service agreements or County approves new positions.

1

Option One: Integrating Training and Prevention Staff

Option Two: Training Facilities

All services explore training facilities collaboratively. 2

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


PEOPLE

• Consider moving Fire Trainers to the County to provide fire training services on behalf of all municipalities and charge at a cost-recovery basis for this service.

PROCESS

• Improve coordination of specialty fire training programs between services by leveraging integrated positions.

INFRASTRUCTURE

• Explore creating a joint fire training facility among all fire services.

Initiative Overview Fire Services



Determine optimal approach for integrated fire service staff and implement.

Create processes to better coordinate external specialized training.

Explore feasibility of sharing a joint fire training facility.

RISKS AND BARRIERS


• Labour: If integration is pursued, employment ramifications would need to be considered for the two positions that would be integrated.

• Service levels: The communities would have to agree to service levels of the new positions and possible facilities.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Fire Services in Haliburton – Potential Areas of ExplorationFire Services

Through the assessment of the fire services current state, it became apparent that staff and leaders in the fire department across Haliburton conduct many collaborative activities. There were two areas identified that were considered opportunities to improve services, collaborate more on the right things, and better support the fire services department:

Training Staff and Facility

Hypothesis: Haliburton fire services could maximize training resources by integrating training staff and exploring a joint training facility built within Haliburton with specialized and expanded fire training capabilities.

Infrastructure: Shared Radio and Dispatch System

Hypothesis: Each municipality uses different/outdated radio and dispatch systems. Coordinating and sharing radio and dispatch equipment will help ensure consistency in managing emergencies across the County and lead to greater collaboration with other departments, such as Public Works.

Each service has varying amount of staff dedicated to training and

inspections, if the Haliburton services integrated these staff positions,

services with existing staff positions could decrease cost, while others

improve service levels.

Coordinating Training Staff

During interviews, it was identified that a new fire services training facility is being investigated with Minden Hills. Sharing

opportunities exist to collaborate usage of the facility between the local municipalities.

Sharing a Training Facility

A new dispatch system could cost up to $1.3M minimum, with ongoing costs coming to approximately $685,000 or more.1 While a new dispatch system could be an excellent

investment to help better coordinate services and improve consistency and collaboration, this investment may require a significant infrastructure change across the County to ensure a realization of cost savings and benefits. Given the uncertainty in efficiencies

gained, we will not be analyzing this system as part of the scope of this report.

New Radio and Dispatch System

1 https://mcnabbraeside.civicweb.net/document/9062/10

More for MoreSame for LessMore for Same/Less

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Coordinating Training OfficersFire Services

Number of Fire Trainers in Haliburton by Municipality

Number of FTE Fire Trainers Number of Volunteers

Algonquin Highlands 1 50 Volunteers

Dysart et al 1 29 Volunteers

Highlands East 0 50 Volunteers

Minden Hills1 (New Position – Deputy Fire Chief, Safety Training and Fire

Prevention )22 Volunteers

TOTAL: 3 151 Volunteers

• The County of Elgin has recently hired a County fire trainer. Five of the seven local municipalities are using this County shared service to provide fire training services on their behalf.

• By having one dedicated fire trainer for the County, the local municipal partners not only save on fire trainer costs through this shared service, but they also benefit from having the same level and standard of training and can conduct joint training exercises together.

• In addition, by having a shared position, participating communities would not need an in-house trainer.

Elgin County

New recruit training is a key strategic pillar for the fire services departments in Haliburton. While monthly meetings are conducted to speak generally about fire services and coordination, and new recruit training is coordinated across the County in an ad hoc fashion, there are opportunities to assess the distribution and number of fire trainers across the municipality and explore integrating existing full time Fire Trainers in Haliburton.

• The Haliburton municipalities could leverage an integrated approach to fire training and inspection staffing models and explore more formal arrangements. This would use the Elgin model.

• These staff resources would be responsible for training and fire prevention across all or some municipalities.

• The benefits for Algonquin Highlands, Dysart et al, and Minden Hills would be able to share the salary costs. The benefits for Highlands East would be service level improvements. This assumes no additional hiring of fire trainers in any of the municipalities and that this could be done through attrition.

Benefits Overview*

Municipalities Approx. SavingsAlgonquin Highlands $38,000


Highlands East ($31,000)


*Assumes 2 fire trainers in long-term via attrition with an approximately $61,000 annual salary each (average of Haliburton municipalities)

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


New Training Facility: Secondary OptionsFire Services

While it was identified that a new regional training facility would be ideal for the Fire departments to share across Haliburton, there are other options to consider that could help achieve the goal of having access to a training facility with additional training capabilities.

Building a New Regional Facility1,2 Option 1: Sharing a Training Facility3 Option 2: Coordinating External Specialized Training1

• In Essex County, a fire services training feasibility study was done to assess cooperative training efforts, including an assessment of the development of a new fire training facility. The facility would include programs such as a Class A Burn Structure, a Fire Simulator, Specialized Operations, CPAT Testing, etc.

• In analyzing a new facility and assessing benchmarks, a new facility would cost, on average, $17.5M. However facilities ranged from $550K to $37M depending on features.

• In addition, the City of Barrie, a new emergency services campus was proposed that included a police headquarters, and indoor fire services training facility, and a paramedic services hub.

• The indoor fire services training facility is projected to cost approximately $14.7M, with an estimated maximum of $18.6M depending on the site which the facility is chosen to be built on.

• Currently, Algonquin Highlands has a fire training facility, but it does not have open access. In interviews, we heard that Minden Hills is also planning on building a fire training facility. If this building is to be built, there are opportunities to share access to the training facility for all municipalities and coordinate more specialized training with volunteers.

• Minden Hills could implement a cost recovery model where the other municipalities pay for use, and the other municipalities get benefits through minimized travel and room and board costs for overnight stay needs if training externally. In a study by Essex County, a proposed cost model ranged from $26,400 annually for 30 recruits per year to $536,800 annually for all 678 firefighters in the County.

• A full analysis and recommendation for the shared arrangement should be done collaboratively by Haliburton in assessing the best shared arrangement that would suit the needs of the municipalities.

• Haliburton has access to external fire training facilities, with many advanced training features and minimal travel times. These include:

• Ontario Fire College (Gravenhurst): 1 hr 3 mins from Haliburton centre (drive)

• Eastern Ontario Fire Academy (Norwood): 1 hr 35 mins from Haliburton centre (drive)

• Costs for training externally in the Town of Whitby’s 2015-2025 Master Plan were estimated at around $196,000 annually (cost drivers would include distance travelled, room and board, and number of trainees).

• In order to achieve efficiencies, Haliburton could formally coordinate external training through trainee management and shared scheduling of training to achieve economies of scale. In addition, coordinated planning ensures all resources being sent away are assessed to not cause strain on municipalities to still ensure emergency needs can be met.

PROPOSED RECOMMENATION: Leverage Option 2 until the new facility is built in Minden Hills, then explore Option 1. The new training facility may be too large an investment at this time with an unclear understanding of efficiencies gained or long-term cost saving potential.

1 https://www.citywindsor.ca/cityhall/City-Council-Meetings/Meetings-This-Week/Documents/Appendix%20B-Fire%20Services%20Training%20Feasibility%20Report%20Final.pdf2 https://www.barrietoday.com/local-news/120-million-price-tag-for-new-emergency-services-campus-causes-sticker-shock-3-photos-6481513 https://www.whitby.ca/en/resources/MFP-Final-Jan-19th.pdf

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Fire Services

This initiative has a range of intermunicipal deliver options from shared services to integration of fire services.


Local





services agreement



All Municipalities


Municipality

NANA

Fire Training Staff • Municipalities with Fire

Trainers could provide their staff on behalf of the other municipalities and be paid in return.

Fire Training Facility • If pursued, Minden Hills

could own and operate a fire training facility and provide this service to the other Haliburton services.

Fire Training Staff • Fire Trainers could move to

the County. Their services would be charged on a shared service agreement.

Fire Training Staff • Fire Trainers could move to

the County. Their services would be charged through the County levy.

NANA

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Waste Management

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative Overview Waste Management

Municipal Approvals

Other Benefits • Improved response to ERP as municipalities will be pooling resources. • Potential for decreased vendor costs as there will be more formalized

collaboration on these services. • Increase compliance to waste policies as they would be standardized across

Halliburton services.

Description

Currently, there is limited collaboration for the Haliburton’s four waste management services. Each local Haliburton municipality is responsible for providing waste management services at significant cost to each community. To improve coordination, a working group, such as the Public Works working group, could be established to support the municipalities’ coordinated response to extended producers’ responsibility, managing external vendors, and standardizing waste policies across the services. In addition, a County-wide review of landfill and transfer sites to decrease the footprint. This could include Highlands East and Dysart et al sharing either the Mumford Road or Harcourt Landfill to reduce costs while having a minimal impact on residents from both communities.


Initiative


Municipalities approve recommendations from working group to promote standardization.

1

Option One: Working Group Recommendations

Option Two: County Wide Review of Landfills and Transfer Stations

Municipalities approve a County-wide review of assets.

Highlands East and Dysart et al approve shared service agreement.

1

2

Benefits Overview

Savings Dysart et al $25,000

Highlands East $25,000

Total $50,000

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


PEOPLE

• Formalize Working Group (see Coordination initiative) that meets frequently and identify how the management of this committee would be divided between managers and their respective staff to ensure fair distribution of workload.


• Create joint processes for vendor management • Develop a coordinated approach to policies. • Monitor ongoing provincial policy developments on extended producers’ responsibility

and coordinate an approach once announced.

TECHNOLOGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE

• Identify upcoming major capital investments per community’s service and explore joint purchasing and tendering.

• Review County waste assets collaboratively and identify increased coordination of assets.

Initiative Overview Waste Management



Create working group and begin standardizing policies and implementing strategies

Review County waste assets collaboratively

Highlands East and Dysart et al explore a shared service agreement for Harcourt or Mumford Road assets

RISKS AND BARRIERS


• Coordination fatigue: Staff are already at or over capacity, so adding more meetings or Committees may be challenging for staff and Council to commit to given the time and resource requirements. However, as evident in the 2010 Cambium Waste Management Review and raised by staff and Council interviews, each individual waste service will find upcoming policy changes (extended producers' responsibility) challenging to address alone. By creating a formalized approach to collaboration, each community will better address these upcoming barriers and collaborate to reduce costs and improve staff productivity in the long-term.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


We have identified four areas of focus for this committee in the near term. The committee should establish clear term of reference. In addition, the committee should identify clear goals for each area of focus and how it will measure its progress against those goals.

Areas of Focus for the Waste Intermunicipal Committee*

Waste Management

Extended Producer Responsibility

Develop a coordinated approach to EPR

• Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, is where the producers of products and goods generating waste take on the responsibility of the product across its lifecycle, including the cost of managing the waste produced by it.

• The goal is to encourage producers to use more recyclable material in their packaging, thereby reducing the cost burden to them in managing product disposal.

• The Province has been delayed in tabling legislation that would change the roles and responsibilities of municipalities in transfer and disposal of recyclables.

• This continued uncertainty also stalls the municipalities in moving forward with any changes to improve the recovery rates of their Blue Box costs.

• Goal: To establish a coordinated approach to EPR across the municipalities to ensure standardization and avoid costs if each municipality was to approach these changes in an isolated fashion.

Coordination of Vendors

Formalize shared service with frequent LMP clients

• While different Haliburton municipalities are hauling waste and recycling to different processing centres based on their geography, Haliburton municipalities can do more to coordinate vendors between the municipalities.

• Key vendor contracts that could be coordinated are: hazardous materials, collection and processing of recyclables, and collaborative hauling contracts.

• As the 2010 Municipal Waste Recycling Strategy by Cambium Environmental concluded, efficiencies can be found by coordination collection and processing of recyclable and hauling services.

• This component could be supported by the procurement specialist outlined in the Procurement Initiative in this report.

• Goal: Working with the Procurement Specialist, Haliburton municipalities will identify potential vendor contracts to go to market collaboratively.

* See slide 29 for details and information on the proposed intermunicipal committees

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Standardization of Waste Policies across HaliburtonWaste Management

Dysart et al Highlands East Algonquin Highlands Minden Hills

Milk and juice cartons must be rinsed prior to disposal. Considered

a container (not paper or fibre).

Cartons and Tetra Pak boxes are recyclable. Must rinse, CRUSH, and

replace plastic lids. No straws. Considered a paper or fibre (not a

container). Cannot go in plastic bags.

Cartons and Tetra Pak boxes are recyclable. Must rinse, CRUSH, and

replace plastic lids. No straws. Considered a paper or fibre (not a

container). Cannot go in plastic bags.

Milk and juice cartons (no additional requirements). Considered a

container (not paper or fibre).

Blue Box Program Policies

Currently, each Haliburton municipality has different rules and regulations on how blue box items can be recycled. Given the propensity for Haliburton residents to consider themselves residents of Haliburton, this can cause significant confusion on the proper recycling methods for each municipality.

An Example: Different Rules for Milk Carton Disposal Across Haliburton Municipalities*

Implications for Haliburton

• Implement more drop-off audits and greater penalties to ensure appropriate recycling measures are being followed.

• Continue providing more resident education on blue box requirements and highlighting key similarities and differences between municipalities via targeted marketing.

• Consider leveraging the Public Works Intermunicipal Working Group (see Coordination initiative) focused on harmonization of all blue box recycling rules across Haliburton municipalities to reduce resident confusion.

*Information taken from municipalities’ websites

Differences in policies and waste acceptance criteria was identified as a major issue across Haliburton, leading to confusion for residents, contractors, and staff. Harmonization of policies and waste management approaches, where opportunities exist, can lead to decreased confusion and increased compliance. This would be an area of consideration for the committee.

Additional Benefits of Standardizing Policies

• Increased compliance across the municipalities

• Increased perception of fairness across the municipalities

Areas of Standardizing Policies

• Materials accepted

• Hours/days of operations

• Communications

• Tipping fees per vehicles

• Bag limit restrictions

• Diversion policies

• Bylaws

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 2: County Wide Review of Waste Facilities Waste Management

Each community is reviewing its transfer and landfill stations. However, these reviews are generally done in isolation with each other. If these reviews were done collectively, there may be efficiencies that could be achieved by completing these reviews collaboratively. Outlined below are different recent decisions made by Haliburton municipalities.

Algonquin Highlands is moving to close its Hawk Lake waste disposal at the end of its life in 2021. This would reduce the municipality’s landfills/transfer stations from 5 to 4.

Dysart et al is currently completing a waste management study. It is contemplating converting two of its landfills into transfer stations.

Highlands East and Minden Hills are entering a shared agreement for the Glamorgan transfer station. This is a good example of collaboratively approaching waste management.

Highlands East and Minden Hills are entering a shared agreement for the Glamorgan transfer station. In addition, Minden Hills announced the closure of its Irondale Landfill in 2019.

Municipalities could take an intermunicipal approach to landfills and transfer stations to find increased efficiencies.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Landfill Sharing ArrangementWaste Management

An example of a consolidation opportunity exists with Dysart et al and Highlands East. Highlands East’s Mumford Road Landfill and Dysart et al’s Harcourt Landfill are within a five-minute drive of another.

Harcourt Landfill

Mumford Road Landfill

Benefits of Dysart et al and Highlands East Sharing Waste Services

• Cost savings through sharing one landfill. • Currently Dysart et al’ spends $73,000 annual on its Harcourt site. Highlands East

spends approximately $49,000 annually on its Mumford Road site. We have estimated conservative cost savings of $25,000 annually for each municipality.

• Access to new capacity and resources and extension of lifecycle of landfills in both areas through a sharing arrangement

• Ability to collaborate more in joint projects related to waste management, leveraging efficiencies and synergies

• E.g. procurement, studies, contracts, etc.• Ability to collaborate more on landfill upgrades and investments to improve or innovate

landfill operations• E.g. joint investment and sharing of compaction technology, etc.

• Ease of access geographically and choice for residents for garbage disposal

Considerations for Dysart et al and Highlands East

• Further consultation and discussion needs to be done to determine feasibility of a shared agreement, particularly given the current arrangement Highlands East has with waste management with Minden Hills (e.g., Glamorgan site)

• Need to conduct full cost analysis and create a strategic plan to determine support and transition (e.g. landfill use cards) if a shared service is agreed on.

• Capacity planning should be re-considered and projections calculated for increased strain on landfills like Harcourt and potential benefits to having access to Highlands East landfills, particularly given the transition of some of Dysart et al’s landfills to transfer stations.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Waste Management

This initiative has a range of intermunicipal deliver options from shared services to integration of Waste Management.


Local





services agreement



All Municipalities


Municipality

Standardization on ERP, Vendors and Policies • The Haliburton

municipalities could coordinate on these policies and procedures.

Harcourt and Mumford Road Shared Landfill• Dysart et al and Highlands

East could create a shared service agreement to operate one of the two landfills. This would reduce expenditures while having a minimal impact on residents.

NA NA NA NA NA

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Coordinating Building, Septic and Bylaw Services

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative Overview Coordinating Building, Septic and Bylaw Services

Description

Municipal Approvals

• We have assumed an integrated building service would be a cost-neutral service. This is achieved in Kawartha Lakes (comparable area and building inspection demand) and the County of Lambton who performs this service for many of its local municipalities. If this integrated service was cost-neutral, it would positively impact Algonquin Highlands and Highlands East.

Other Benefits • Improved productivity through specialization of staff • Improved service standardization leading to better customer experience • Improved succession planning through a larger service

Participating municipalities approve shared service agreements. 1

Benefits Overview

Savings Algonquin Highlands $10,000*


Total $25,000

The Haliburton municipalities have identified that meeting current demand for building, septic and bylaw services is a challenge. To improve these services and be able to meet current and future demand, this initiative recommends that the Haliburton municipalities could (i) create building and septic shared service agreements for areas that may be better served by a neighbouring municipality due to proximity; or (ii) voluntarily integrate building and septic services into a cost neutral service. This integration may include bylaw services but must consider the variability in full-time staffing models. If the integrated service was cost neutral, this would have a positive financial impact for Algonquin Highlands and Highlands East.

Option One: Shared Service Agreements

Option Two: Voluntary Service Integration

County Council to approve a new service resolution.

Local Councils approve resolutions to integrate services.

1

2

Shared service agreements created and approved for bylaw services for participating municipalities, if applicable.

3

*Financial information for Algonquin Highlands is reported for building, septic and bylaw services together. While revenues for building and septic service were clear, building and septic expenses were assigned as percentage of staff time.


Initiative


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


PEOPLE

• Depending on the recommendation considered, staff would either be responsible for new service areas or participating municipalities’ staff would integrate under one service.

• If the integration model is chosen by some or all Haliburton municipalities, this would have a large impact on building staff as they would become County employees.


• Shared Service: If this recommendation is considered, processes to inform the neighbouring service areas changes to building inspections would need to be established.

• Integration: If voluntary integration is considered, the County Council would be responsible for the governance of this service on behalf of participating communities.


• Shared Service: If this recommendation is considered, municipalities with a shared service agreement would need to ensure their technology systems can be integrated so other municipal staff can perform inspections on their behalf.

• Integration: If this recommendation is considered, migrating the data of the participating municipalities to one system would need to occur. In addition, ensuring the new service has the required equipment will need to occur (vehicles, etc.)

Initiative Overview Coordinating Building, Septic and Bylaw Services



Determine appetite of communities for either recommendation

Create operating model, shared service agreements and pass Council recommendations

Operationalize service and complete ongoing reviews

• Change management: Each of the recommendations would impact staff. The shared service recommendation would be a smaller and more easily accepted change. If integration is pursued, change management strategies should be adopted to ensure staff buy-in and retention does not become an issue.

• Labour: If integration is pursued, labour unions would have to be consulted as well as collective agreements to ensure transition to an integrated service.

• Service levels: While building service is legislated under the Building Code, each community approaches septic inspections (pump outs vs. not) and reinspection programs differently. For integration to occur, it would be beneficial for these service levels to be standardized.

• Customer: To keep resident access to this service, we recommend all local municipal offices accept building and septic applications.

RISKS AND BARRIERS


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Current State Challenges Coordinating Building, Septic and Bylaw Services

During staff and Council interviews, the following major themes were identified about building, septic and bylaw services across Haliburton.

Risks to succession planning – Communities across Haliburton have experienced varying degree of succession risks. As small departments, if a Chief Building Officer or Inspector leaves the municipality, it can take a significant period of time to fill this vacancy. This negatively affects service.

Increasing demand – COVID-19 is expected to increase the number of full-time residents. Staff expect there to be increased demand for services for building and septic inspections and bylaw because of this change in the County’s demography.

Travel to inspections – There are areas within Haliburton municipalities that are closer to a neighbouring municipal office. As a result, inspectors are travelling large distances to service areas that could be serviced more efficiently by neighbouring services. This impacts staff productivity and service levels.

Bylaw enforcement – Each community has identified enforcing bylaws as a challenge to varying degrees considering staffing allocations. From staff time estimates, bylaw enforcement in terms of FTE time allocations range from 0.1 FTE – 2.35 FTEs. In addition, weekend and night enforcement is challenging.

Staff and Council stressed the above issues as high potential areas to improve productivity and service levels.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Stakeholder Feedback We conducted a workshop with the Haliburton Home Building community. They stated the following about the Haliburton building, septic and bylaw services:

• All Haliburton services have knowledgeable and approachable CBOs: The Haliburton builders interviewed spoke highly of the staff at each of the Haliburton municipalities.

• Staffing and scheduling can be an issue: As also noted by staff, the Haliburton services can occasionally become understaffed. In addition, there are areas within each municipality that are far away from the local offices. When coupled with the increasing demand for services in each municipality, from a customer perspective, this can occasionally make it difficult to schedule inspections.

• There are opportunities to increase standardization in applications across communities: The Haliburton builders interviewed stated that there could be increased standardization across communities (different application forms, different bylaws by community, rules such as bedrooms over garages, different approaches to building drawings on-premise versus off-premise, etc.).

• Online services are preferred: Algonquin Highlands allows for electronic applications. The Haliburton builders interviewed spoke highly of this process as it is customer-centric.


Finding improvements in these service areas will:

• Benefit residents: Delays in building and septic permits are passed onto Haliburton residents. Improving this service will make construction more affordable for Haliburton residents.

• Economic benefit: The construction industry is a key sector for all Haliburton communities. Improving permitting efficiency will allow these local businesses to be more productive and profitable, which will have positive macro-economic effects.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Shared Service: Create Cooperative Service Agreements


While voluntary service integration is a long-term option, the Haliburton building and septic services could create more service agreements for areas within their municipality that would be more easily serviced by a neighbouring municipality. This would reduce staff travel time and improve customer service outcomes. Outlined below are potentials areas that municipalities could explore for a shared service agreement. More areas may be included in this service discussion.

Service Areas

Area Currently Serviced By Proposed Service Provider

Dysart et al’s portion of Kawagama Lake Dysart et al Algonquin Highlands

Harcourt, Harcourt Park, Elephant Lake, Benoir Lake, Wilberforce area (Outram Rd, Grace River Rd, Buxton Rd.)

Dysart et al Highlands East

Snowdon Minden Hills Highlands East

North Side Koshlong Lake Highlands East Dysart et al

Gelert Road Highlands East Dysart et al or Minden Hills

Trillium Trail (Loon Lake) Highlands East Dysart et al

West Side Salerno Lake Highlands East Minden Hills

Considerations • To support the implementation of shared service agreements, all Haliburton municipalities could discuss possible service agreements collaboratively instead of bilaterally.

The major barrier to an agreement will be staff capacity. If a larger, multi-municipal discussion occurs, it is more likely that a municipality may be able to reallocate a current service area that is difficult to service and take on a new service area that is easier to service. This will support staff capacity.

• Once this is established, municipalities would have to create shared service agreements that respect each community’s septic inspection and/or re-inspection programs.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Integration: A Regional Service to Building, Septic and Bylaw Services


Looking to other County examples and the issues identified by Council, staff and stakeholders, Haliburton municipalities could voluntarily integrate their building, septic and bylaw services to the County to improve productivity and service. This voluntary integration would not result in layoffs but would have labour considerations as job titles and employers would change.

Bylaw (1 - 4)

Chief Building Officer (1 FTE)

Deputy Chief Building Officer (1 FTE)

Administration

1

2

6

County Service

• #1 CBO: Currently, Haliburton building staff are spending approx. 1.77 of FTE time on managing the services. By having one service, this would allow for one FTE to fully focus on management. This position would ensure staff are adequately trained and qualified, have the tools to complete their tasks and establish best practices and procedures.

• #2 Deputy CBO: This position would support the CBO in general management and support inspections on an as-needed basis. This person would cover the CBO on leaves and vacation and support succession planning.

• #3 Inspectors: Five full time inspectors would perform both building and septic inspections across Haliburton. Instead of being assigned to a specific municipality, service areas could be created that allow for efficient inspections based on volume and route optimization. This would allow these inspectors to be more productive than the current, segmented process.

• #4 Plan Examination Staff: The integrated service could have 2 staff dedicated to complete plan examinations on behalf of the inspectors. These Plan Examination staff would determine compliance with the building code, zoning and applicable law. By having dedicated staff to reviewing plans instead of inspectors completing these functions, this would improve the service’s effectiveness.

• #5 Permit Clerk: This FTE would be responsible for booking inspection, answering inquiries, and permit and revision intake. To support a customer-centric design, residents wanting to use paper-based applications could be submitted to any Haliburton municipal office. However, they would be processed by the one centralized clerk.

• #6 Bylaw: The exact staff footprint varies depending on the participating communities. We have allocated 1 – 4 bylaw enforcement officers. However, municipalities would have to agree to participate in this additional integrated service. This could include the County’s third-party bylaw service.

Inspectors (5 FTEs)

3

Plan Examination Staff (2 FTEs)

4

Permit Clerk (1 FTE)

5

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Integration: Allocation of Staff per Activities for Building Services There are currently 12 staff from across the municipalities involved in building and septic services. In addition, many of these staff perform a varying degree of bylaw enforcement and other municipal functions. However, Highlands East has two full time staff dedicated to bylaw enforcement. Dysart et al has one officer who spend 70% of their time on bylaw enforcement. Considering the small size of each department, staff are performing a wide range of services. These wide ranges of activities affect productivity of staff and the effective of the service.

Function Area

Area Collective Efforts

(in FTEs) New Model

Efforts (in FTEs) New Model Explanation

General Management 1.77 1.25

• The CBO and Deputy CBO would provide general management. Currently, because of competing priorities, no service has a dedicated FTE focused solely on management. The new model’s CBO would exclusively be dedicated to general management. This would allow for more time to be spent on strategic work and process optimization for the service.

Building and Septic Inspections 5.73 5.75

• This service would have 5 inspectors and the Deputy CBO would support inspections too. The new model would be more efficient by creating service areas based on demand and geographical optimization instead of municipal boundaries. In addition, these staff would solely be focused on inspections. Currently these staff complete other functions including bylaw enforcement.

Bylaw Enforcement Performed by Building Staff

0.9 1 • Each community approaches bylaw enforcement differently, with different service levels. When these

services are integrated must be considered.

Administration 2.8 3

• All communities except for Algonquin Highlands have an administrative/clerk staff member to complete this function. However, currently, these administrative staff complete other work (bylaw, other municipal administration, etc.). By having dedicated administrative resources, this would improve productivity.

Other Municipal Work (Planning Support, Front Desk, Lottery, etc.)

0.8 -• Building and Septic staff perform other functions in their respective municipalities. We have assumed

that one of the 12 staff would not move to the new service but rather stay and perform other municipal work.

Total FTEs 12 11


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Integration: Bylaw Services


As mentioned, the Haliburton municipalities vary in full time allocation of bylaw enforcement. For instance, Algonquin Highlands and Minden Hills rely on building staff to perform bylaw services. Dysart et al has a dedicated bylaw enforcement officer who performs other functions. Highlands East has two dedicated full-time officers. The County uses a third-party service. As a result, this integrated service may or may not include bylaw services. If it does include bylaw services, not every municipality may want to participate in this element.

Option 1: Do Not Include Bylaw Services

This option would not include bylaw services.

• This option would keep bylaw services at the local level. The County would maintain its provider.

• For Algonquin Highlands and Minden Hills, these communities would need to find solutions for bylaw services as their planning staff would be involved in the integrated service.

• One possibility is for these municipalities to share a full-time bylaw officer between the communities.

• This would increase service levels assuming that each municipality receives 0.5 FTE each.

Option 2: Include for Some Municipalities Option 3: Include for All Municipalities

This option would include bylaw services for all municipalities.

• This option would result in the voluntary service integration of bylaw services for all Haliburton municipalities including the County.

• This would result in a standard level of bylaw enforcement services across the municipalities.

• It is likely that Highlands East may see their service levels decrease as it is unlikely that they would maintain two full time dedicated staff to bylaw enforcement.

This option would include bylaw services for some municipalities.

• This model could have a bylaw shared service agreement for some municipalities including the County.

• A unique shared service agreement would be crafted between the County and those municipalities to ensure the funding of this service is not funded by the building and septic services.

• Algonquin Highlands and Minden Hills would be more likely to participate in this agreement compared to Highlands East and Dysart et al because they lack dedicated bylaw officers.

Jurisdictional Example – Intermunicipal Bylaw Services for Five Hastings Communities

• As of May 2020, five Hastings communities will outsource their by-law enforcement as one collective shared service.• This was done to improve service levels while not putting a large financial burden on the communities. • This potential integrated service could add bylaw services for willing municipalities.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Integration: Service Financials


We have provided the financial and cost sharing structures of the two potential service integration areas.

Building and Septic Inspection Services

• Using jurisdictional examples of the County of Lambton and Dufferin, who use an integrated service, and the City of Kawartha Lakes, who have relatively similar geography and demand for services compared, we project the reconfigured service to be cost neutral.

• This service could include Haliburton municipalities’ septic reinspection programs. However, if the municipality’s portion of septic reinspection programs were not cost-neutral, this cost would be charged back to the respective municipality.

• There would likely be integration fees of combining the services. Cost associated with legal, equipment, and technology consolidation would have to be costed.

Bylaw Services

• If bylaw services for some or all Haliburton is included in this integrated service, a cost sharing agreement could be created. • The bylaw services would charge the respective municipalities for enforcement actions and investigations. • These costs could be reconciled quarterly. Using historic data, costs could be projected for each community and then reallocated once exact figures are collected. • In addition, participating Haliburton municipalities would have to define service levels at the onset of integration to ensure the new potential services is meeting municipal

expectations. This may include increasing service levels for some municipalities.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Integration: Building and Septic Jurisdictional Examples


Outlined below are two regional approaches to building services. These examples have the County playing a lead role.

County of Lambton

The County of Lambton Building Services Department has a coordinating role for all 11 municipalities under its purview and manages building permits for changes and additions to properties including but not limited to: new house or structures, demolition of an existing structure, additions or alterations to houses or accessory buildings, electrical, mechanical or plumbing changes, and swimming pools.

The County provides the following services to the municipalities: issuances of building permits, assess compliance with the Ontario Building Code, inspections and enforcements.

The municipalities provide the following service to residents: access for residents to all permit applications forms (i.e. submitting forms at municipal offices).

This service is a cost-neutral service.

Dufferin County

Dufferin County has a county-level building division which reviews building permits and employs a Chief Building Official. This service is administered for all community municipalities. The county manages building permits for changes and additions to properties including but not limited to: new buildings or structures, building additions, sheds, structural alterations, and swimming pools and decks.

In February 2020, Dufferin County launched an online portal for all County residents to submit building permit applications electronically, with local municipalities reviewing the applications to ensure adherence to by-laws. This change is intended to remove the need for two separate reviews and fee payments at the municipal and County level and streamline the process.

This service is a cost-neutral service.

Implications: • The Haliburton communities could explore a similar technology solution to

support resident submission and reviews.

Implications: • The Haliburton communities could explore similar roles of local municipalities

to ensure appropriate resident access.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Integration: Implementation Considerations


Outlined below are integration considerations for the County and the local municipalities.

Area Considerations

County and Local Municipal Conversations

• The County would have to determine its ability to provide this service on behalf of willing municipalities. • Once the County has determined its capacity, each local municipality would have to determine its willingness to (i) migrate building

services and (ii) include bylaw services in that migration.

Operating Model Design

• Once willing partners are determined, the County and partners would then assess exact staff complement, service areas, and procedures.

• As building and septic services are cost-recovery services, this would be included in its design.• However, if bylaw services are included a cost sharing agreement would need to be created between participating municipalities.

Algin on Service Standards• The participating communities would have to create standardized service levels. As most services are clearly governed by the building

code, the standardization would focus on frequency of septic reinspection programs. • Bylaws would not have to be aligned. In the municipal example, each Hastings community has its unique bylaws.

Create Shared Service Agreement

• As building and septic services are a cost neutral service, there would not be a need for a service agreement for these elements of the service.

• If bylaw services were included, a shared service agreement would need to be created to ensure costs of this service are fairly allocated.

Council Resolutions • County Council and Local Councils would need to pass respective Council motions.

Service Integration • County Leadership would be responsible for integrating this service (i.e. selecting the CBO, migrating staff and resources, etc.)

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Coordinating Building, Septic and Bylaw Services

This initiative has a range of intermunicipal delivery options from shared services to integration of building and septic and bylaw services.


Local





services agreement



All Municipalities


Municipality

NA

Benefits • Easier implementation to

create shared service agreements between municipalities for specific areas.

Drawbacks• May not drive the most

productivity of service.

NA

Benefits • Could be used for bylaw

services for participating municipalities.

• Would respect different service levels between municipalities.

Benefits • Could be used to integrate

building services. • Has the most potential for

productivity gains. Drawbacks • More complex

implementation compared to shared service agreements.

NANA

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Planning Services

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


All four Haliburton communities have identified planning services as an area of improvement for residents and municipalities. While Algonquin Highlands, Minden Hills and Dysart et al all have planning staff in-house, Highlands East relies on an external consultant for planning support. Staff have commented that planning processes are misunderstood to the public, while also commenting that their administrative burden has increased, and capacity for long range planning policy has decreased. There is an opportunity to find efficiencies through a shared planning staffing resource, aligning and standardizing planning processes and fees, and policies across the Haliburton municipalities. In addition, the municipalities could use one Official Plan with Secondary Plans to reduce costs and improve staff productivity. These recommendations could help for future integration options if desired by the Haliburton municipalities.

Initiative Overview Planning Services

Municipal Approvals

Description

Benefits Overview

Total Benefits/Cost per Community

Rev Dark Green Light Green

County of Haliburton - ($13,000) $37,000

Algonquin Highlands $8,000 ($2,000) $26,000

Dysart et al $30,000 ($13,000) $36,000

Highlands East $13,000 $21,000 $13,000

Minden Hills $23,000 ($2,000) $20,000

Total Savings/Costs $74,000 ($9,000) $132,000

County approve new planning technician positions

Municipalities approve County shared service for planning technician

Local councils and staff approve changes to planning processes, notices and fees

1

2

3


Initiative


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative Overview Planning Services

OPERATING CONSIDERATIONS RISKS AND BARRIERS

Activities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Standardize planning processes, approve a shared fee schedule, checklist and application format

Prepare a job description and recruit for a junior planner at the County level

Reduce local official plans, draft a County wide Official Plan +


PEOPLE

• Retain a shared junior planner across the Haliburton municipalities to assist in administrative planning functions coordination between the communities and the County

• This position would partially replace Highland’s East agreement with their party planner, and also act as a lower cost planning resource for the local municipalities

• We recommend that this staffing resource is shared equally across the Haliburton municipalities


• Align the Haliburton municipalities on a shared planning application process • This includes:

• A standardized application format across the municipalities • A standardized ‘roadmap’ that aligns planning processes • A standard fees schedule

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

• Create one, County wide official plan that would cover local planning matters across Haliburton County.

• Lack of local oversight: There is a risk that standardizing planning policy could reduce the input of local oversight from council and residents. This could be mitigated use of secondar plans that provide greater context for areas within Haliburton that require increase planning consideration.

• Lack of buy in: Standardizing of planning policies will take a significant lift to achieve but result in benefits across Haliburton County in attracting to development and increasing resident engagement.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Staff and Stakeholder Feedback We conducted workshops with both staff and stakeholders. They stated the following about the Haliburton services:

STAFF FEEDBACK

• Administrative tasks are increasing: Planning staff are experiencing an increase in workload in administrative tasks (i.e. planning inquiries), reducing their capacity elsewhere.

• Long term policy planning is difficult: Staff commented that due staff constraints it is difficult to produce long term planning policy.

• There is an opportunity to standardize applications and fees across the communities: It was mentioned that having a standardized application checklist with accompanying fees could streamline the application process.

STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

• There is an excellent working relationship between local planners and developers: The Haliburton developers interviewed spoke highly of the staff at each of the Haliburton municipalities.

• There is a high level of political engagement for planning services: Developers commented that politicians were actively involved in the planning process, which could both help applications but also hinder them.

• There are inconsistencies in the planning approval process across the local municipalities: Stakeholders commented that the interpretation of planning processes and the approval bodies varied between the local municipalities, creating differing timelines that can make estimating development approvals processes difficult.

• There is increasing competition from neighbouring municipalities in attracting development: Stakeholders noted that they are most likely to develop in municipalities that have a streamlined planning process.

Planning Services

Service improvements can be made through streamlining processes and reducing duplications of work. Administrative functions are significant drain on planning staff,making the development of planning policy difficult.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Current Challenges in Planning ServicesPlanning Services

Varied approaches to planning fees and processes – Each of the Haliburton municipalities have a varying approaches to planning applications, including differing fees, approval processes and applications. This variability can be confusing to residents and potential developers. A coordinated approach that includes a standard application, fee schedule and approval process will aid in streamlining processes.

Administrative burden – A significant amount of planners’ time is spent on administrative tasks (including general inquires and information requests). This time could be more efficiently utilized for planning intensive tasks i.e. planning applications and policy development. The addition of a shared junior planner may help alleviate administrative burden, increasing productivity.

Increased Coordination – The municipalities would benefit from an increased coordination of planning services. At times, the length of period for the approvals of applications has lengthened .

Attracting development – Developers commented that a more efficient development approval process would attract new business. An increased level of coordination, and a clear planning process roadmap can add certainty to the process and attract and retain new business opportunities.

Outlined below are the current challenges facing planning services in Haliburton County as identified in the current state review, and stakeholder interviews:

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 1: Proposed Planning Services Working Group

We suggest that the Haliburton municipalities create a planning services working group (included in the Communications and Coordination initiative), composed of staff from the Haliburton municipalities, to collaborate on the standardization process for public notices, development applications and a standard fees schedules.

Planning Services

Approvals and adoption

Establish a working group

Roles and Process:

• Establish a working group: The formation of a planning services working group would help coordination between the local Haliburton municipalities. This body would be composed of planning professionals and across the municipalities. This body would be the primary touchpoint for coordination across Haliburton County and assist on the coordination of standardizing planning processes; including a standard public notice format, development application checklist, and a standard fees schedule. In addition, this working group would be an opportunity to collaborate on long term planning policy and support a unified approach to planning services across Haliburton County.

• Craft recommendations: The working group would help coordinate recommendations as it relates to each municipalities’ planning departments to increase standardization across municipalities.

• Approve and adopt recommendations: The standardization of planning processes across Haliburton can be achieved in multiple steps across differing timelines. The adoption of an agreed shared public notice format could be achieved on a short time frame (less than a year) as it would not need council approval. The adoption of a standardized planning process and fees schedule will need more collaboration, and adoption through council.

Craft recommendations

2

1

3

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 1: Standardizing Public Notice Format Planning Services

Stakeholders commented that the planning processes within Haliburton County can be confusing to residents, with added confusion due to the variability across the local municipalities. Public Notices are one of they key resident facing documents for planning policy that could be updated and standardized to improve understanding and engagement for residents.

Standardizing a Public Notice Format

✓ Development Proposal Public Notices are signs/posters that are listed from the submission of planning applications.

✓ The signs are required under the Planning Act and are intended to provide notice of the statutory public meeting and/or open house associated with the application.

✓ Public notices include basic information related to the application, including the legal address of the subject property or properties, proposed use, height and density.

A standardized public notice format would include:

• A standard format, with consistent layout and formatting, including; the municipality, the application type and information related to the application;

• An invitation to participate in the development review process;

• Provide as much information about the proposed development as possible, while remaining easy to understand;

• Reduce the amount of text required to convey the important information; and

• Be highly graphic, preferably with the use of icons to outline proposal details.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 1: Harmonizing FeesPlanning Services

Planning fees for applications and consultations are highly variable across the local municipalities. In addition, staff commented fees are not recovering the cost of the service. The local municipalities could agree upon a standard fees schedule planning applications and consultations across Haliburton to improve cost recovery of these services. However, all fees must be on a cost recovery basis.

Standardizing a Haliburton Wide Fees Schedule

✓ The costs for planning applications is variable across the Haliburton municipalities, with each municipality charging varying fees for planning services

✓ This variability causes confusions to residents

✓ Currently, staff have stated that fees do not cover costs of the activity

✓ For the municipalities to have more cost recovery, we have used the highest municipal fee currently in use in Haliburton

✓ Local municipal planning departments should follow a harmonized approach to calculating fees for services

✓ For this project, we have assumed that all municipalities could increase fees to become more cost-neutral. Further study will be required

Further Study: The local municipalities could study a standardized fees schedule that achieves a higher cost recovery ratio

Planning Fees across Haliburton

Fee Current Fee Range Proposed Standardized Fee

Minor Variance $850 - $1,200 $1,2000

Severance/Consent $1,000 - $1,200 $1,2000

Subdivision/Condominium Agreement

$2,500 - $5,000 $5,000

Zoning Bylaw Amendment $1,000 - $2,150 $2,150

Official Plan Amendments $2,000 - $3,300 $3,3000

Revenue Increase*

Municipality Annual Revenue Increase

Algonquin Highlands $8,000




Total $74,000

*We have assumed this revenue increases will be strictly used on a cost-recovery basis only. Increases cannot surpass planning costs.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 1: Standardizing Pre-Consultation Processes Planning Services

Submit application for pre-consultation

Pay required consultation fee

Planning staff review, provide comment on alignment with County and local plan

Planner decides whether to support the application at the local level

Submit application for pre-consultation

Pay required consultation fee

Planning staff review, provide comment on alignment with County and local plan

Planner writes report for Council

Application submitted to local Council for comment

The local municipalities have a varying approach to the pre-consultation process for development applications. Algonquin Highlands, Dysart et Al, and Highlands East all submit planning applications to the council for comment prior to the application being forwarded to the County. This is one planning process that could be aligned across the municipalities to improve efficiencies.

Future State

Current State

2

Two process steps are reduced. Applications are no longer sent to Council for comment in the pre consultation stage. Planners no longer have to write public facing documents to be presented at Council, increasing staff efficiencies.

Planning staff internally comment on their support of the application before it is sent to the County for comment. This reduces planning application timelines and increases staff efficiencies

Application is circulated to the County for comment

Application is circulated to the County for comment

1

1

2

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 2: Administrative SupportPlanning Services

Planning Staff estimate that between 20 – 35% of their time, on average is spent on planning administrative functions. These tasks could be completed by a Planner at the County level, a significantly more affordable staffing resource. In addition, Highlands East could use this resource instead of a third-party contractor.

Job Title: Junior PlannerCompensation: $45,000 - $55,000 per annum plus benefits

Benefits of this shared position:✓ The local Haliburton municipalities can establish a shared service

agreement to share a junior planner who would be staffed at the County level

✓ The utilization of a junior planner for administrative duties is more cost efficient than utilizing senior staff for entry level work

✓ These savings are higher for Highlands East, who could reduce their overall reliance on a third-party planner

✓ Existing planning staff would have more time to focus on long term planning policy, which was identified as limited due to constrained staff capacity

✓ This staffing resource would be responsible for ensuring a streamlined process for applications, ensuring a seamless transition from local municipalities to the County and increasing coordination

✓ This would decrease application timelines, and increase coordination across Haliburton County

Junior Planner Job Description

• A Junior Planner position could replace the current requirements that Highlands East has on a third party planning services, with additional support from County Planning.

• The creation of the position could be a joint shared position withing County Planning, with each municipality having access to this planning resources approximately 1 day a week.

• This position would reduce this administrative burden currently on planning services and be a lower cost resource.

• This position could act as the first line of contact for administrative planning functions, including inquiries from area municipalities and other public agencies, developers, consultants, lawyers and the general public to give advice on the planning process and approvals.

• In addition, this position could assist on the coordination of planning applications between the local municipalities and the County level

• This position could review and coordinate consolidated Regional recommendations on minor development applications including Official Plan Amendments, re-zonings, site plans, plans of subdivision and condominium to the approval authority regarding development applications.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 2: Administrative Support Continued Planning Services

We predict this resource would work on day a week for all Haliburton municipalities. The financial and productivity benefits are outlined below.

Municipal Benefit

Current Cost New Cost Annual Savings/Productivity

Gains Explanation

Highlands East $80/consultant fee per

hour $26/hour Savings: $21,000

• This resource could be used to provide consulting services to Highlands East. The County’s Director would oversee this person’s work.

County $60/hour $26/hour Productivity: $37,000 • This resource would support the remaining communities one day a week on administrative functions. Productivity was calculated by (i) not having senior resources complete administrative work and (ii) freeing senior resources’ time for one day a week to complete more value-added work. However, this would cost these four services $13,000 in new direct costs. These costs have been factored into municipal benefit calculations.

Algonquin Highlands $46/hour $26/hour Productivity: $26,000

Minden Hills $38/hour $26/hour Productivity: $20,000

Dysart et al $43/hour $26/hour Productivity: $23,000

All Haliburton communities have expressed a need for increased assistance. By sharing a resource between the communities, staff would better be able to meet demandand coordinate services between the communities.

Expected Service Costs

Estimated Budget Rationale

Salary Position $50,000 • Using PayScale information, we estimate that the salary for this position to be $50,000.

Employee Overhead $15,000• We have estimated 30% of the employee’s salary to employee overhead (benefits, computer, expenses, etc.). • This is a standard benchmark.

Total $65,000

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 3: Consolidated Official Plan Planning Services

Outlined below are process improvements intended to standardize planning processes across Haliburton County.

Recommendation 3: A Consolidated Official Plan Background:

The local Official Plans are extensive policy documents that take significant

time to update and review. Provincial legislation dictates that Official Plans

must be updated every 5 years. Staff have indicated in years of Official Plan

Reviews there is limited resources for any additional planning policy (special

planning studies/reports).

There is a duplication of process for Local Official Plans and the County Official

Plan. As the County is the approval authority for Official Plans, the

requirement to conform to a Local Plan is a necessity due to legacy processes.

The local municipalities could remove their local official plans, in lieu of a

Haliburton wide County Official Plan.

The approval process for a County Plan could be decided based upon the

input from the local municipalities. Options include a county wide committee

of adjustment, approval at County Council or maintaining approval authority

at the local municipal councils.

• Official Plans are required to be reviewed every 5 years. • On average, the Haliburton municipalities allocate $10,000

per year to the Official Plan Review process in outside consulting fees.

• Staff have commented that the quality of consulting services for Official Plan reviews can be variable.

• Staff have commented that for the municipalities that complete OP reviews in-house, it takes a significant portion of planners time, preventing capacity on long term planning projects.

• Local municipalities could opt out of their own local Official Plan, instead having a single County Plan.

• Any areas of particular planning interest (i.e. Halliburton Village) could be given considerations under a Secondary Plan area study.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 3: Integration: Municipal Benefits

Planning Services

Outlined below are the municipal benefits of this recommendation.

Municipal Benefit

Annual Savings/Productivity Gains

Rationale

Algonquin Highlands Savings: $11,000• Algonquin Highlands budgets $11,000 annually for Official Plan consulting fees. This option would also improve

staff productivity.

Dysart et al Productivity: $13,000• We have estimated that a senior staff person spends two month of work on preparing and supporting the official

plan.

Highlands East Productivity: $13,000• We have estimated that a senior staff person spends two month of work on preparing and supporting the official

plan.

Minden Hills Savings: $11,000• Minden Hills budgets $11,000 annually for Official Plan consulting fees. This option would also improve staff

productivity.

Savings Total $22,000

Productivity Gains $26,000

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 3: Jurisdictional Examples Planning Services

Local municipalities within Wellington County are not obligated to have Official Plans and can choose to opt out of having a local official plan. The majority of lower-tier municipalities are covered through the County Official Plan. More urban local municipalities have chosen to retain a reduced local Official Plan, like the Town of Erin, while some urban centres only retain Official Plans for settlement areas; Fergus, Elora and Salem have OPs (in Centre Wellington).

County Staff accept, process, and present on all County-level development applications to Planning Committee which is composed of local and County level politicians.

Wellington County County of Hastings

The County of Hastings has 15 local municipalities that is represented by one single County wide Official Plan that outlines land use policies for across the County (except for two separated cities and a First Nation community). There are no local official plans. Urban areas that require a more detailed plan are included under Secondary Plan areas. All approvals are made at the County Council level.

Hastings County has a centralized Planning office but has aimed to maintain local access to planning services through the rotation of local planners to local municipal offices at designated dates and times (i.e. a local planner is present at the Town of Bancroft biweekly for scheduled and drop-in planning appointments.)

Implications: • The Haliburton municipalities could be covered by a single, County wide OP.

Implications: • The Haliburton municipalities could choose to opt out of having a local official

plan and can instead to defer to the County Official Plan. • Approvals are made via planning committee that includes local politicians.

Other jurisdictions have adopted approaches that eliminate the need for a local municipality's official plan, while maintaining access to local planning services, and giving municipalities options in their approach to County planning jurisdiction.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Implementation Considerations

Planning Services

Outlined below are integration considerations for the County and the local municipalities.

Area Considerations

Standardizing a Public Notice Format

• The standardization is a low barrier recommendation• Local municipalities must agree on the graphic design of the public notice, allowances could be made for municipal logos

Standardizing a Haliburton Wide Fees Schedule

• The local municipalities could agree on standard fees across the Haliburton municipalities, the fee structure could be based on a higher cost recovery ratio for the time taken to review applications

• This would need council approval across all of the local municipalities

Standardizing pre-consultation process

• Council consideration is not required for planning applications under the Planning Act• Local councils can decide to remove this process step• This could be decided and implemented by each municipality individually

Additional Administrative support

• The local municipalities would approve a levy to the County to support the creation of a new junior planning position • This position would be jointly shared across the municipalities; the execution of time per municipality would need to be agreed on (i.e.

hours per month, daily allowance, etc.)

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Planning Services

This initiative has a range of intermunicipal delivery options from collaboration shared services to integration.


Local





services agreement



All Municipalities


Municipality

Standardized Public Notices & Pre consultation and Fees schedule• This component would

promote standardized processes for planning services. NA NA

Sharing of a planning resource• The local municipalities

would share a junior planning resource at the County level to assist on administrative functions

Consolidation of local official plans, into a single County Plan• The County plan covers the

local municipalities.

NA NA

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Economic Development

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative Overview Economic Development

Description

Municipal Approvals

While each local Haliburton municipality approaches economic development services differently, there is currently limited collaboration between the communities on this service. While the County has a tourism service that supports coordination between communities, the County lacks an economic development function. If the County was to establish an economic development service, not only would this service support increased coordination between communities, it would support the municipalities’ eligibility for provincial and federal programs that require larger population sizes and access to different forums. As both the provincial and federal government increase program spending due to COVID-19, this County wide service will become more needed.

County Council to approve new position

Haliburton municipalities to approve increased levy

1

2

Cost Overview

Total County Cost

Total Annual Service Budget $200,000


Initiative


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative Overview Economic Development


• Service equity: Concerns were raised that this service works and provides value for all Haliburton municipalities and not overly focused on urban areas. To address this concern, we recommend that this service is directly governed by County Council. This will ensure every community is directly responsible in providing guidance to the service.

• In addition, one of the first steps we suggest is creating a County-wide economic development strategy that all communities endorse. This will provide the service with clear direction over the first three to five years.


Prepare report for County Council consideration and approval for new position

Prepare job description and recruit for Economic Development Officer

Craft County-Wide strategy and gain buy-in

Execute strategy and report on implementation


PEOPLE

• Retain a qualified Economic Development Officer at the County to support economic development coordination between the communities and help develop a County-wide strategy


• Develop a County-wide strategy that has sign off from each municipality • Ensure the service is governed directly by County Council to support equity and focus

on all municipalities’ needs • Ensure that key stakeholders are identified and engaged for the County-wide plan and

ongoing relationship building and advice.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Current Challenges in Economic Development Coordination Economic Development

Without a County Service, there are limitations – Stakeholders and staff have commented that without a County service, Haliburton communities are limited in participating in different programs (Eastern Ontario Leadership Council, Workforce Development Board, and provincial and federal programs that require certain populations to participate).

Limited coordination between Municipalities – It was observed that there can occasionally be a lack of coordination and alignment on economic development across the local municipalities and County, partially due to staffing constraints, as well as expertise and at times competing priorities.

Implementation and concierge services needed – Stakeholders and staff identified both a need to act as a concierge service for businesses to navigate Haliburton governments. In addition, implementation of coordinating services is also needed.

Community need – In the 2015 Census, Haliburton County’s median income was $29,425, roughly $4,000 lower than the Provincial median. In addition, as of August 2020, Eastern Ontario’s unemployment rate is 13.1%, higher than the provincial average of 10.6%. Additional economic development services could support tackling both the County’s lower wage median and higher unemployment rate. 1

Outlined below are the current challenges facing economic development services in Haliburton County.

Establishing an economic development service at the County and hiring an Economic Development Officer would help address the above issues.

1 Statistics Canada.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Stakeholder Feedback Economic Development

We conducted a workshop with the Haliburton economic development community including the Chamber of Commerce, Haliburton Village BIA, Algonquin Gateway Business Association and the Highlands East Economic Development Committee. They stated the following about the economic development within Haliburton.

• Succeeding at economic development is seen as crucial for the long-term development across Haliburton County: Stakeholders agreed that improving economic development, attracting and maintaining business/employers was key for growth across the Haliburton municipalities.

• There needs to be a focus on businesses and employment outside of seasonal work: Stakeholders mentioned that a seasonal economy was unsustainable for residents.

• Community services are needed to support local economic development: Stakeholders mentioned that in order to support economic development and business, increased access to community services (transportation, affordable housing, education and childcare) are needed.

• Local municipal efforts for economic development have been effective, but have difficulty scaling: Stakeholders noted that local approaches (i.e. #buycloseby initiative) can be effective at the local level, but need further support to get lift across other municipalities.

• The business community would like increased government support and coordination from the municipalities and County: Business stakeholders commented that economic development isn’t there explicit mandate, and to support their efforts greater support is needed from local governments to build upon their efforts.

• A consistent and collaborative approach is needed for economic development: Stakeholders commented that for economic development to be effective it needs to be done in tandem by the local Haliburton municipalities and the County.

• Economic development must be distinct from tourism: Stakeholders have mentioned that tourism efforts by the County (with coordination from the local municipalities) have been effective, in order for an economic development approach to be effective it needs to be separate, and go beyond tourism.

• There are run off effects from the lack of a clear economic development voice: Developers and businesses mentioned that neighbouring municipalities offer a “concierge approach” which can guide developers and potential future business through municipal processes. The lack of a personal relationship can make municipal processes seem complex and dissuade development.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Best Practice in Rural Economic Development Economic Development

In Redden’s study examining best practices in rural economic development, he identified four best practices that should be fo llowed. We believe that establishing a service at the County would help augment the existing services at the local level.

Area Best Practice Haliburton Ramifications

Community Understanding

Acquire a solid understanding of the local community’s market and assets: Before a community can say that it is “open for business” and heads out to market itself, it needs to understand its community needs.

• If the County had an economic development service, it would be better positioned to understand the current economic development needs from a County-wide perspective and participate in the Workforce Development Board.

Dedicated Staff

Invest in a full-time economic development officer (EDO), or equivalent: Building on current literature, Redden endorses the hiring of an economic development professional to commence (or continue) the research of the local market and assets, implement the economic development strategic plan, build local capacity, and track performance.

• While Highlands East and Minden Hills have dedicated staff, Dysart et al and Algonquin Highlands do not have full time economic development staff.

• By having a full time County staff person, Dysart et al and Algonquin Highlands would have access to a professional staff person and the other communities would increase their capacity.

• In addition, the communities would have access to coordinated services and support.

Work with the Community

Respect local capacity by recognizing existing organizations in the community: Any municipality involved, or looking to invest, in local economic development must work to complement such existing organizations and fulfill the necessary gaps that cannot be satisfied already. A role for the rural municipality must respect and recognize the needs, desires and successes of existing organizations.

• There are strong external organizations (HDCD, the Chambers of Commerce, Haliburton BIA, local economic development committees, etc.).

• This new County service should establish stronger working relationships with these and other organizations to support the service’s success.

Partner with Other

Municipalities

Partner with neighbouring municipalities and participate in regional consortiums: The merits of participating in a regional strategy have been made clear. A number of respondents to the survey indicated that they partner with their upper-tier municipality to coordinate economic development across the region.

• This new County service would augment the work that is currently being completed at the local level.

• As Redden concludes, this new service would help to coordinate economic development services across Haliburton.

Is there a best practice? A better understanding of local economic development in rural Ontario. Redden, Andrew.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Changing Provincial and Federal Economic Policy and Programs Economic Development

As a result of COVID-19, both the Federal and Provincial approach to economic development is changing. As a result of the pandemic, there will likely be a wave of programs available to Haliburton and its member municipalities. This service should target key programs that it could apply for in a coordinated fashion.

Provincial Government

Rebuilding the Economy will be a Top Priority in Ontario’s Fall Legislative Agenda

Priorities for the upcoming session include:

• Helping young people and workers receive the skills training they need to join the modern workforce and contribute to the recovery of the province;

• Accelerating the construction of critical highway, transit and broadband infrastructure projects to create jobs and boost the local economies of communities across Ontario;

• Protecting families and those most vulnerable and helping them get back on their feet as the province reopens;

• Expanding manufacturing by creating the conditions to bring investment and jobs to the province and world-class, Ontario-made products to consumers around the world;

• Providing relief to Mainstreet Ontario and small business owners so they can recover from the impact of COVID-19 faster and get back to the work of building their business; and

• Building Ontario's production capacity for personal protective equipment, ventilators and other medical gear so the province never has to rely on any other jurisdiction again for these critical supplies.

Federal Government

The Throne Speech demonstrated key areas that may be of interest to Haliburton municipalities.

These include:

• Create over one million jobs through direct investments in the social sector and infrastructure, immediate training for workers and incentives to hire and retain workers;

• Scale up the Youth Employment and Skills Strategy;

• Work to target additional financial support directly to businesses which must temporarily shut down as a result of a local public health decision;

• Create an Action Plan for Women in the Economy to help get more women into the workforce;

• Investments in all types of infrastructure, including public transit, energy efficient retrofits, clean energy, rural broadband (including accelerating the Universal Broadband Fund) and affordable housing;

• Create a new fund to attract investments in making zero-emission products and halving corporate tax rates for these companies and moving forward with the Clean Power Fund; and

• Continuing to build domestic capacity to manufacture PPE and securing supply chains to keep Canadians safe and create jobs.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Proposed County Position Economic Development

This new service would report into County Council and would focus on implanting a County-wide economic development strategy, act as a coordinating body for the communities, and serve as a concierge services for businesses.

• Led in the creation of a County-wide economic development strategy • Lead and/or work with department staff, other Haliburton municipalities,

and stakeholders on collaborative projects• Develop and implement strategies for business retention and attraction,

including developing a concierge service • Act as County liaison for external stakeholders• Develop and maintain relationships with local businesses, developers,

investors, real estate agents, Haliburton County Development Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce, BIAs in respect of development initiatives, issues and processes

• Participate on cross-departmental or intermunicipal teams on projects to streamline business facing processes

• Work with the County’s tourism service to coordinate initiatives • Prepare reports and presentations for County Council

Job Description

Job Title: Economic Development Officer Compensation: $80,000 - $90,000* per annum plus benefits

A County Economic Development Service would: ✓ Be responsible for implementing and reporting to County Council on

the County-wide Economic Development plan ✓ Act as a concierge service for prospective and established businesses

in navigating Haliburton regulations and municipal processes✓ Support the streamlining of processes across communities that

negatively affect business ✓ Be responsible for coordinating and liaising with local communities’

services, local municipalities and stakeholders to implement County-wide economic development initiatives

✓ Represent and work with external stakeholders such as Eastern Ontario Leadership Council and the Workforce Development Board

✓ Identify and pursue provincial and federal programs in coordination with Haliburton municipalities (i.e. skills development)

✓ Research and inform communities on changing policies that may impact their local economies (i.e. marijuana legislation, etc.)

This service would not: × Eliminate the economic development work being completed by

individual municipalities.

*Salary based on other County Economic Development Officer salaries.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Governance and Strategy Economic Development

We are recommending that this service is governed directly by County Council to support equity and strategic direction. In addition, we recommend that

Governance: Reporting to County Council

We are suggesting that this service reports directly to County Council instead of a Board of Directors.

• To ensure equity of this service, we recommend that this service is governed directly by County Council.

• Compared to a Board of Director composed of business leaders and some County Council members (done by Prince Edward County and Lennox and Addington's services), each Council member will be able to provide guidance to support this service meeting their community’s unique need.

• To ensure that external stakeholders are consulted, the Economic Development Officer will be responsible for establishing and maintaining relationships with these stakeholders.

• If deemed needed, the service could create working tables with specific business stakeholders to gain their feedback on the community’s needs and service’s direction.

Strategy: Develop a County-Wide Strategy

Develop a County-wide strategy with the input of the member municipalities.

• We suggest that this service first completes a County-wide strategy with the input and sign off of the member municipalities.

• This strategy would identify the unique and overlapping needs of the Haliburton communities and create clear goals for the service over the next three to five years. For instance, Algonquin Highlands has a unique asset in its airport property that could be used economic development purposes.

• In addition, external stakeholders (HCDC, Chambers of Commerce, BIAs, etc.) should be consulted to ensure their feedback is included in the strategy.

• Once a strategy is approved by all member municipalities, this will be the guiding document to assess the service’s progress.

• Clear goals should be outlined in this document to measure performance. However, as suggested in economic development literature, metrics should ensure that the service has a clear “cause and effect” linkage 1. There are many metrics outside of the services’ direct control (i.e. unemployment rate, jobs created, etc.).

By creating a governance structure with all communities overseeing this service and developing a clear strategy, this service will be better positioned for success.

1 Performance Measurement in Economic Development. EDAC. 2011.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Jurisdictional Examples Economic Development

Outlined below are some County economic development services structure and focus that can be used in developing the Haliburton service.

Lennox and Addington

Structure and Governance: Internal Service Reporting to Council

The County’s Economic Development Service reports to the Director of Community and Development Services. This service reports directly to County Council instead of an external board of directors.

Service Focus: Concierge Services

Lennox and Addington decided to prioritize economic development through development an economic development office that offers ‘concierge services’ to attract potential business partners:

These concierge services include a free business coaching for small business, a database of available properties and businesses for rent/for sale, assistance in hiring local staff for open positions, and resources and support in applying for municipal incentive and funding programs.

District of Muskoka

Structure and Governance: Internal Service Reporting to Council

The District’s Economic Development Service reports to the Commissioner of Community and Planning Services. This service reports directly to County Council instead of an external board of directors.

Service Focus: Coordination with Area Municipalities

The District’s service works with the Area Municipalities to implement and coordinate District-wide economic development initiatives. Included in the District services is conducting District-wide studies to inform the service and member municipalities, identify and advising business on supports and development service processes, supporting new businesses with permits and licenses, and targeting growth of key industries (i.e. the creative economy).

Implications: • The Haliburton service could develop a similar concierge service as Lennox and

Addington’s service. However, the services provided within the concierge service would be dependent on Haliburton’s unique needs and the service’s economic development strategy.

Implications: • The District’s focus of coordinating and working with the area municipalities to

ensure coordination with local municipalities could be applied to Haliburton’s service.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Cost Assumptions Economic Development

Expected Service Costs

Estimated Budget Rationale

Salary Position $80,000 • Using the County of Renfrew and PayScale information, we estimate that the salary for this position to be $80,000.

Employee Overhead $24,000• We have estimated 30% of the employee’s salary to employee overhead (benefits, computer, expenses, etc.). • This is a standard benchmark.

Service Expenses $96,000• We have kept other expenses relatively low as this is a new service and the focus should be establishing the

service and creating a coordinated strategy in the first year. There may cost sharing initiatives with the County’s tourism service.

Total Costs $200,000

• While Renfrew’s economic development service costs approx. $350,000 last year and Frontenac’s economic development service costs approx. the same. While these are comparable Counties, these services are more established.

• This service may be able to find cost efficiencies with the County’s tourism service (approximately $400K annually) • As this will be a new service, we have estimated a lower cost to establish this service.

Outlined below are some County economic development services structure and focus that can be used in developing the Haliburton service.

We have not estimated new revenues. However, the new service will likely improve revenues through accessing provincial and federal grants.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Economic Development

Using the intermunicipal delivery options, we recommend the County provide this new service through its levy. This would use the model for the County’s tourism service which is working well for the Haliburton municipalities.


Local





services agreement



All Municipalities


Municipality

Drawbacks• This model does not

drive enough coordination between services.

NA NA NA

Benefits • Mirrors the existing

structure for the County’s tourism service.

NANA

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Collaborative Procurement

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative OverviewCollaborative Procurement

Description

Municipal Approvals

Currently, Senior Management across all municipalities are responsible for procurement. Staff recognize the benefits of collaborative procurement, but without the time or resources, they cannot consistently identify and implement opportunities to do so. This initiative presents the potential savings generated from collaboratively purchasing commodities or services based on the experiences of comparable jurisdictions. As well, this initiative assesses the cost-benefit analysis of hiring a Procurement Specialist to be shared amongst the municipalities.

County Council to approve new position

1

Benefits Overview

Total Potential Savings Including Staff Costs (Distributed as Savings %)

County of Haliburton $69,000 - $153,000

Algonquin Highlands $45,000 - $154,000

Dysart et al $121,000 - $416,000

Highlands East $62,000 - $214,000

Minden Hills $75,000 - $256,000

Total $372,000 - $1,193,000

Other Benefits • Improved staff productivity • Decrease risk exposure through acquiring an in-house procurement

specialist

Haliburton municipalities agree to shared service agreement

2


Initiative


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


PEOPLE• Identify and recruit Procurement Specialist. • As this will be a shared service, we recommend the County house this employee.

However, this service will support all Haliburton municipalities purchasing functions.


• Determine the optimal process for consistently engaging with Department Heads and Treasurers/Clerks from each municipality to identify collaborative purchasing opportunities ahead of the budget cycle.

• Create a contribution agreement to report staff time to ensure the cost of the shared service is fairly paid for.

• Determine whether contracts would be managed by one Haliburton municipality on behalf of interested municipalities, or if each interested municipality would manage their own contract.

Initiative BackgroundOPERATING CONSIDERATIONS

Activities Year 1 Q1 - 2 Year 1 Q3 - 4 Year 2

Prepare report for County Council consideration and approval for new position

Prepare shared service agreement for joint Procurement Specialist

Prepare job description and post for Procurement Specialist

Recruit and onboard successful candidate

• Geography: Depending on the commodity or service, each municipality may not experience the same financial benefits to collaborative procurement given costs associated with travel.

• Scale and scope of projects: While greater frequency, scale, and scope for projects may achieve economies of scale and more competitive pricing, it may also disqualify smaller, local contractors or bidders.

• Unique requirements of each municipality: For this initiative to be successful, any efforts to enhance collaborative purchasing across the Haliburton municipalities must consider the unique requirements of each municipality. As such, the Procurement Specialist must be responsible for assessing the viability of each group purchase against the needs of the municipalities.

RISKS AND BARRIERS



Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Jurisdictional Examples and Collaboratives Outlined below are municipal examples of successful collaborative procurement initiatives undertaken by lower and upper tier municipalities across Ontario. In both cases, they leveraged cooperative purchasing organizations, such as OECM and AMO (Local Authority Service), to achieve cost savings.


In 2012, the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontarioreleased a report titled Shared Services in Ontario’s Local PublicSector: Localizing Accountability, which providing guidance formunicipalities on how to develop, govern, and sustain sharedservices. As part of their report, they explored five case studies,including the Peterborough County Purchasing Group. Theircase study found that this purchasing collaborative saved 5-15%of product and service costs. 1

The York Region N6 is a purchasing collaborative comprised of the six northern municipalities in York Region: Town of Georgina, Town of East Gwillimbury, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Town of Newmarket, Town of Aurora, and the Township of King. The group works together under the following key tenets: (1) equality regardless of size, (2) ability to take calculated risk and use innovation, and (3) ability to participate or not. Together, the group has found 5-10% in savings by working together. 2

Collaborative Procurement Case Studies

Cooperative Purchasing Organizations

1Shared services in Ontario’s local public sector: localizing accountability. Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario. 2012.2York Region N6 collaboration initiatives. Ontario Municipal Administrators’ Association. 2018

3OECM. 2020.4Harnessing the power of cooperative purchasing. Municipal World. 2020.

OECM is a not-for-profit collaborative sourcing partner for Ontario’s broader public sector. Purchasing through OECM not only helps to achieve competitive pricing, with average overall savings of 37%3, but ensures compliance with broader public sector procurement directives and regulatory requirements.

AMO is working with municipal associations from across the country to offer cooperative purchasing to members through its LAS program. LAS leverages the buying power of member organizations to yield important benefits, such as competitive pricing, consolidated invoices, additional time to pay, and greater bargaining power to secure better prices. 4

The Georgian Bay Area Public Purchasing Cooperative (GBAPPC) was established in response to the demand for public purchasers to reduce costs. The cooperative was formed by a group of ten. There is currently no charge for membership. Any agency spending with public funds may apply for membership.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Provincial Line by Line Review Collaborative Procurement

The Provincial Line-by-Line review demonstrated the potential savings for BPS organizations, including municipalities.

Findings

• Strategic procurement can significantly reduce overall procurement spend across government (including the Health Sector, Core OPS and Core BPS sectors) by optimizing whole-of-government procurement practices.

• Procurement transformation is a common initiative in government and commercial sectors, with an extensive record of finding cashable efficiencies.

• EY recommended standardization of products purchased across programs, ministries, and the BPS.

• BPS sector and other government agencies could establish sector led value-based procurement teams (Procurement Innovation Program) for complex and specialized items.

Benefits

• Standardization of products purchased across programs and ministries could leverage additional economies of scale and reduce per unit costs across the OPS and BPS.

• New South Wales, a provincial Australian government, was able to realize 14% reduction in product spend categories.

• Auckland City Council drove $168M (CAD) in procurement savings over two years on a $3.6b annual spend. Savings were achieved through conducting analysis on existing spending, identifying categories that could be consolidated, and finding synergies across suppliers.

EY completed the 2018 line-by-line review for the Government of Ontario. Procurement was a key recommendation to drive savings in the BPS.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Collaborative Procurement Net SavingsCollaborative Procurement

Provided below are a list of commonly purchased commodities and service categories that illustrate the potential for cost savings through collaborative procurement. Estimates are indicative of potential cost savings using 2019 actuals and actual savings will vary by municipality and procured commodity or service.

Services and Commodities by Municipality

Service/Commodity Grouping

County Algonquin Highlands Dysart et al Highlands East Minden Hills

Public Work Commodities (Gravel, Sand, Salt, etc.)

$968,000 $159,000 $341,000 $313,000 $344,000

Public Work Services* (Road Paving, Blasting, etc.)

$700,000 $54,000 $337,000 $284,000 $170,000

Waste Services (Garbage Disposal, Recycling Services, etc.)

$8,000 $359,000 $1,034,000 - $304,000

Fire Equipment (PPE, Masks, etc.)

- $44,000 $59,000 $25,000 $32000

Total $1,67,000 $1,087,000 $2,949,000 $1,516,000 $1,814,000

5% Savings $84,000 $54,000 $147,000 $76,000 $91,000

10% Savings $168,000 $109,000 $295,000 $152,000 $181,000

15% Savings $251,000 $163,000 $442,000 $227,000 $272,000

*Does not include engineering consulting. Engineering consulting is included in the Roads, Bridges and Drainage initiative.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Cost Benefit AnalysisCollaborative Procurement

Financial Summary

New Costs – 2021

Procurement Specialist (Salary plus overhead/benefits) $80,000.00

Total New Costs $80,000.00

Projected Net Annual Savings (all Haliburton Municipalities)

5% Savings – Minus Costs $372,000

15% Savings – Minus Costs $1,193,000

Considerations

In the desired future state, the Haliburton municipalities will:• Hire a new contracted resource whose salary is supported by all Haliburton municipalities

through part of the cost savings achieved through collaborative procurement initiatives across the Haliburton municipalities.

• It is suggested that the cost for the resource be managed and allocated using a managed service agreement in which the resource tracks their time and bills the respective community.

• Across the Haliburton municipalities, tenders are consistently managed and tracked through the Treasury department, with Department heads responsible for producing the written scope of the RFP through standardized language. This already consistent approach will support the development of a centralized and coordinated system for collaborative purchasing, managed and lead by the Procurement Specialist.

This new resource would: ✓ Identify opportunities for collaborative purchasing of commodities and

services ✓ Work with interested Haliburton municipalities to agree upon specifications

for the bid based on the unique requirements of each municipality ✓ Assess the procurement policies and by-laws of each interested municipality

for requirements to tender, go to market, sole source, etc. ✓ Submit the bid to tender (depending on the dollar value of the project or

commodity) ✓ Work with the Haliburton municipalities to identify the successful

proponent ✓ Work with other Haliburton public sector organizations to drive

collaborative procurement

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Best Practices in Municipal Procurement

Using Ontario Municipal Knowledge Network’s research in Leading Practices in Municipal Procurement, we have outlined areas in which the Procurement Specialist could support Haliburton municipalities in adopting best practices to decrease the municipality’s risk and increase vendor performance.


Cost Savings – This resource could support municipalities in creating standardized metrics to measure the result of a procurement to support learning and cost savings. In addition, this resource could support the adoption of innovative methods such as research auctions for goods and services in which price is the primary consideration.

Governance improvements – The Procurement Specialist could work with the municipalities to ensure that there are procurement planning requirements for communities and that all procurement policies contain best practices such as: requirements for types of goods and services, segregation of duties, records retention and dispute resolution mechanisms, etc.

Resource, Training and Support – This resource would ensure that all communities have templates and forms that are easily accessible to staff and holds training sessions for individuals that participate on evaluation teams, as well as other training and resources for Haliburton staff.

Contracting – This resource could support municipalities in adopting a vendor performance monitoring policy to ensure contract compliance and assist in identifying vendors that may be excluded from future competitions.

Process efficiency – This resource would support improved process workflow of approving large purchases to standardize processes and improve staff productivity.

Joint procurement – This person would support staff to identify what goods and services would be good candidates for joint procurement and what procurement consortiums to participate in.

1Leading Practices in Municipal Procurement. Ontario Municipal Knowledge Network. 2011.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Collaborative Procurement


Local





services agreement



All Municipalities


Municipality

Drawbacks• While current

collaboration support strategic purchasing more can be done through formalizing activities to drive cost savings and ensure staff productivity

NA NA

Benefits• Potentially more

transparent linkage between cost and value of service

• Potentially a tighter accountability for quality of service

Drawbacks• Marginally more complex

Benefits • Administrative simplicity• Takes advantage of

existing structure on high yield opportunity

Drawbacks • Potential for perception

that some use more than others

NA

Benefits • Participating in

collaboratives have the potential to reduce costs through economies of scale

This initiative recommends a range of integration options. Each option has its benefits and drawbacks. This new service could have the County create a shared service agreement where the procurement specialist charges back municipalities for the service used or the service could be charged directly through the County levy. Regardless, this new service should work with collaborative purchasing organization (OECM, GBAPCC, etc.) to achieve savings through economies of scale.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Integrated Digital Strategy

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative OverviewIntegrated Digital Strategy

The County currently provides IT services to the local municipalities, with each municipality approving software procurements through their individual approval process. Currently, there is limited coordination for shared IT investment. In addition, the municipalities would benefit from integrated long-range planning. Through the development of a shared IT committee, a long-term digital strategy could be developed to better address common areas of concern and leverage economies of scale in IT investments. This formalized process for integrating IT into municipal IT investment decisions could improve outcomes, costs and staff productivity. To pilot this approach, the municipalities could plan for an integrated approach to records management. In addition, the shared service agreement should be reevaluated so that this service is a cost recovery service.

Description

Key Considerations • The estimated annual costs associated with records management practices across

the Haliburton municipalities was used to demonstrate the staff time used on manual processes to demonstrate potential savings in productivity from a coordinated effort

• Each solution identified and addressed through a coordinated process will increase net savings and productivity gains resulting from an integrated digital strategy.

Benefits Overview

Example Project: Digital Records Management

Total Savings: Productivity Gains (Light Green)

Algonquin Highlands $20,000Dysart et al $23,000Highlands East $17,000Minden Hills $19,000Total $80,000

Municipal Approvals

County staff agree to facilitate overall process and assess capacity to support

1

County and Local staff approve joint planning and approval processes

2


Initiative


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


PEOPLE• Director of IT could convene municipalities through an IT committee on quarterly and

drive the problem-solving and long-term planning process forward.


• Record the current procurement and approval processes across municipalities and departments for IT investments

• Develop a standardized problem-solving process and approach for IT to work with municipal departments prior to procurement to scope issues and identify appropriate solutions.

• Build a process for building a backlog of requests and issues and developing an integrated 5-year roadmap across the County and local municipalities.

• Review the shared service agreement to ensure that the service is a cost-recovery service.


• Increased use of shared platforms and solutions, where feasible and beneficial.• Decreased variety of software solutions with similar functionality within and across

municipalities.

Initiative BackgroundOPERATING CONSIDERATIONS


Develop integrated long-term planning processes

Identify and begin execution on pilot project (e.g. Records Management)

Identify lessons learned from pilot project and revise process as necessary

Implement revised solution development and planning process and develop first 5-year plan

• Varying needs across municipalities: The current technology used varies from municipality to municipality due to legacy IT investments and differing needs

• Change management: This will require that department heads are engaged in a more formal process, with meeting quarterly.Governance Change: This will involve a change to procurement and governance of IT across all municipalities, much of which is currently decentralized.

• Limited broadband access: Access to broadband can be difficult depending due to the varying access based on geography. A number of solutions may present the best option for one municipality but fail to meet the needs of another.

RISKS AND BARRIERS


Integrated Digital Strategy

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Transitioning to an Integrated Digital StrategyIntegrated Digital Strategy

Local municipal department identifies potential IT need

Department decides whether to consult IT or not

Department proceeds through internal budget process

Municipality procures software, IT supports implementation

Current Process Future State Process

• Municipalities will still retain final decision on IT investments• Five-year plan will focus on shared investments and plan to address

gaps over time• County IT capacity will need to be assessed to determine intensity of

process• New software procurements should be fed through the steering

committee to solicit interest in sharing, and embed in five-year plan• A five-year planning process should incorporate an ongoing review of

longer-term needs for all municipalities and limit ad-hoc software procurement

Principles and Considerations

This initiative would define and implement a process that integrates and improves the ways in which the Haliburton Municipalities make IT collective investment decisions. This would include formalizing an approach to IT decision-making and software development to be made through establishing an IT committee, and formally incorporating County IT in the procurement and selection process. The committee would create a 5-year digital strategy, that will serve as a foundation for IT investments, establish and manage the required resources, and create the opportunity to share investments across the municipalities.

Gather initial list of outstanding IT needs from across municipalities

Develop an initial five-year plan based on prioritization of shared needs

Implement an annual process to update and revise roadmap

Institute a process to escalate new IT needs to the IT department prior to procurement and solution selection

Design and implement a requirements gathering and problem-solving process, facilitated by IT

New solutions will be funnelled through the steering committee to solicit interest in shared procurements, and feed into the five-year strategy

IT will recommend potential solutions or requirements to support procurement and implementation

IT will assess existing solutions available within the municipality and County to assess extensibility and leverage currently available features

2

3

7

8

1

4

5

9

1

2

3

4

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Example Pilot: Digital Records Management ProcessesIntegrated Digital Strategy

ESTIMATED COSTS OF CURRENT RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROCESSES – STAFF TIME (hours per day)

Employee ActivityAverage Time Spent – Algonquin

HighlandsAverage Time Spent – Dysart et al Average Time Spent – Highlands East Average Time Spent – Minden Hills

Retrieving documents

0.5 hours 0.5 hours 0.5 hours 0.5 hours

Filing/Re-filing 0.5 hours 0.5 hours 0.5 hours 0.5 hours

Making copies & storing

0.5 hours 0.5 hours 0.5 hours 0.5 hours

Estimated Yearly Cost of Staff Time

$20,000.00 $23,000.00 $17,000.00 $19,000.00

When considered together, the total approximate annual cost of existing records management processes is $80,000.00 .

The proposed process and approach is intended to leverage the use of the existing investments and expand the available opportunities to share costs and investments.

Records management was chosen as a pilot project to test drive this approach as it was identified as an opportunity area by all of the local municipalities due to the productivity losses from paper records, but is estimated to have a cost and level of effort that is too great for each municipality to take on independently at this time. Through a collaborated approach to planning, the Haliburton municipalities can establish a strategy to create a digital records management policy, process and approach.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Integrated Digital Strategy

Using the intermunicipal delivery options, we recommend the County provide this new service through its levy. This would use the model for the County’s tourism service which is working well for the Haliburton municipalities.


Local





services agreement



All Municipalities


Municipality

NANA NA

Coordinated Digital Strategy

• The municipalities create a joint 5-year digital strategy to coordinate IT purchases

Update Shared Service Agreement

• The shared service agreement could be updated to ensure that it is a cost-recovery service

NANA

NA

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Coordinated Legal Services

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative Overview Coordinated Legal Services

Description

Each of the Haliburton municipalities relies on external legal counsel for all legal matters, which account for considerable non-recoverable expenditures each year. Despite procuring similar legal advice and services, there is limited coordination across the municipalities in the procurement of these services. This initiative explores the potential to reduce the overall cost of legal services across the Haliburton municipalities by sharing an in-house Municipal Barrister & Solicitor for general municipal law services. This would likely improve service levels as well. In addition, the municipalities could issue a joint RFP for specialized legal advice on an as-needed basis.

Other Benefits • An in-house service would likely increase service levels as this resource would be

more accessible and affordable to Haliburton municipalities. • The County Barrister & Solicitor would have access to resources, precedence, and

network connections through the various law associations and memberships. • The Haliburton municipalities could potentially achieve more competitive hourly

rates and improve service levels by issuing a joint RFP for specialized legal services (outside the scope of expertise of the County Barrister & Solicitor) on retainer.

Benefits Overview

Total Net Savings – Dark Green

County of Haliburton $3,000


Dysart et al $5,000



Total $53,000

Municipal Approvals

County and municipalities approve shard service agreement for in-house Municipal Barrister and Solicitor.

County approve new position.

1

2


Initiative


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


PEOPLE• Retain a qualified Ontario municipal lawyer who possesses the ability to act as both a

Solicitor and a Barrister.


• The Haliburton municipalities would require a contribution agreement to cover the base cost of the County Barrister & Solicitor, with a billable hourly rate for usage over and above what is described in the contribution agreement.

• This contribution agreement should also consider the increased liability of the County for retaining the Barrister & Solicitor, including insurance costs where not captured in administrative overhead.

• Determine the practice areas to be included in the joint RFP for specialized legal services on an as-needed basis.

• Draft a Memorandum of Understanding between the County and the Haliburton municipalities, detailing what to do in the event of a conflict.

Initiative Overview Coordinating Legal Services


• Costs for external counsel: The shared Municipal Solicitor would reduce the monthly spend for each municipality on external legal counsel by bringing general municipal law services in-house, but the Solicitor would not totally reduce the need for external counsel for specialized legal advice or services in all practice areas of municipal law.

• Unique needs of each municipality: While each municipality would be responsible for contributing to the total cost of this FTE, not every municipality will be required to participate in each tender for legal services or each legal inquiry outsourced to existing law firms. This will affect the type of contribution agreement drafted for this initiative.


Prepare contribution agreement for shared County Barrister & Solicitor for Council approval

Prepare job description and recruit County Barrister & Solicitor

Issue joint RFP for specialized legal advice on an as-needed basis


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Overview of 3-Year Legal Expenses by Cost Category To better understand what is driving legal spend across the Haliburton municipalities, and to assess the potential for cost reductions through integrated service delivery, we requested the three-year total legal spend for each municipality as outlined below. We have categorized the annual costs into “General” and “Specialized” legal advice to estimate the potential savings for both categories by bringing services in-house through a Municipal Solicitor, and issuing a joint RFP for specialized areas of municipal law.


Three Year Average Legal Spend

Algonquin Highlands Dysart et al Highlands East Minden Hills County of Haliburton

General Legal Services $109,000 $14,000 $25,000 $39000 $7,000

Specialized Legal Spend $16,000 $20,000 $2,000 $31,000 $20,000

Total Spend $125,000 $35,000 $26,000 $70,000 $27,000

Observations

• In the past three years, total legal spend across all the communities ranged from $214,000 - $382,000. The three-year average being $290,000.

• The general legal costs have ranged from $133,000 - $304,000 annually. The three-year average being $203,000.

• Specialized legal services have ranged from $78,000 - $95,000 annually. The three-year average being $86,000.

• As municipal sector become more complex, the Haliburton municipalities will likely see their legal spends increase.

• In addition, not having affordable and available access to legal services leaves all Haliburton municipalities at exposed risk.

$133,000

$304,000

$178,000

$81,000.00

$78,000.00

$95,000.00

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

2017 2018 2019

General Specialized

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Coordinating Legal Services: County Municipal Barrister & SolicitorCoordinated Legal Services

Using the example of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, the Haliburton municipalities could share an in-house County Municipal Barrister & Solicitor in lieu of contracted services for general municipal law.

• The County Municipal Barrister & Solicitor, as an independently licensedOntario lawyer, would provide legal advice and representation to theparticipating Haliburton municipalities who have retained the services ofthe County, for all legal matters related to general municipal law. Roles andresponsibilities are outlined below:

• General Civil Litigation and representation at various levels of court,including small claims, Superior Court, etc., and administrative tribunals(Ontario Municipal Board, Human Rights Tribunal, etc.).

• Preparation, screening, and carrying out of prosecutions for all by-law,Planning Act, Building Code Act, and other infractions.

• Negotiation and drafting of agreements, contracts, licenses, leases, tenderdocuments, policies, and other corporate documents.

• Other duties as assigned.

Roles and ResponsibilitiesKey Considerations

Cost Overview

Cost Base Total Annual Costs

Salary – Municipal Barrister & Solicitor $100,000 - $140,000

30% administrative overhead and benefits $30,000 - $42,000

Continuing education and law association fees $3,000

TOTAL $133,000 - $185,000

• The Municipal Barrister & Solicitor would not completely reduce legalexpenditure for specialized services outside the areas of expertise of theSolicitor.

• If there is a conflict of interest between the County and one or more of theHaliburton municipalities who have retained the services of the CountySolicitor, the municipalities would retain external legal counsel throughoutthe duration of the case.

• Generally, the greatest cost drivers of legal spend for the Haliburtonmunicipalities are in the areas of labour/employment/human resourceslaw, and planning and development. Expertise in this area would be asignificant asset and help to reduce additional expenses for specializedservices.

• The cost of the employee will range depending on the seniority of the staff.

• Regardless, the three-year average general spend is approximately $20,000 higher than the high end of this service’s cost projections.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Coordinating Legal Services: Joint RFP for Legal ServicesCoordinated Legal Services

As discussed during the workshops and using the example of Peterborough County, the Haliburton municipalities could issue a joint RFP for specialized practice areas of legal services on an as needed basis that are outside the scope of expertise of the County Barrister & Solicitor, or when there is a conflict of interest. Potential practice areas to be included in the RFP are outlined below, but the Haliburton municipalities will have to first determine what expertise is required of the County Barrister & Solicitor.

Practice Area Description

Municipal Finance, Tax, and Assessment

Provide opinion on matters related to the service area and provide advice and represent the participating Haliburton municipalities in assessment hearings and tax appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board, Assessment Review Board, amongst others.

Environmental Law Provide advice and representation on matters in relation to environmental protection and applicable legislation.

Real Estate Law Draft, negotiate, and close agreements with respect to the acquisition and disposal of property, drafting and negotiating or providing advice on leases, easements, and any other transactions related to County/municipal real property.

Construction Law Provide advice and representation for areas including bidding, tendering, negotiating, and drafting contracts, contract disputes, etc.

Municipal Planning Provide advice and representation on municipal planning and development, including drafting and negotiating development agreements, development charges, subdivision agreements, making appearances at the OMB, etc.

Labour and Employment General and specific advice and representation relating to employment law and related matters such as conflict resolution, employment standards, labour relations, and health and safety/

Tax Registration Includes tax sale, issuing final notices, and preparing preliminary and initial tax registration.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Cost Benefit AnalysisUsing the two categorizations of legal expenses for each of the Haliburton municipalities, we have estimated that the Haliburton municipalities could save $70,000 in general legal expenses by bringing this service in house through a County Barrister and Solicitor, and $4,000 in expenses for specialized services by issuing joint RFPs. In addition, service levels would improve by having a dedicated in-house barrister and solicitor.


Savings

Average General Spend Cost for Service Savings on General Spend Savings on Specialized Spend through RFPs

Total Savings

Algonquin Highlands $109,000 $85,000 $25,000 $1,000 $26,000

Dysart et al $14,000 $11,000 $4,000 $1,000 $5,000

Highlands East $25,000 $19,000 $6,000 - $6,000

Minden Hills $38,000 $30,000 $10,000 $2,00 $12,000

County of Haliburton $7,000 $5,000 $2,000 $1,000 $3,000

Total Spend $194,000 $150,000 $48,000 $5,000 $53,000

• As done by other County legal services, the in-house solicitor could track their time and bill directly to the individual municipality.• This would help ensure a level of fairness for this shared service.• The Solicitor could be housed within the County.

Shared Service Agreement

We have used a mid-point and estimated the total cost of this new in-house service as $150,000 year.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Benefits of Coordinating Legal Services

There are a number of benefits to coordinating legal services across the Haliburton municipalities. Some of these benefits will result in quantifiable savings in dark green or light green dollars, and others will improve service levels and minimize administrative burden. These benefits have been summarized and presented below.


Memberships and insurance coverage – Licensed lawyers in Ontario are required to belong to the Law Society of Ontario, where members have access to precedence, materials and expertise, as well as professional liability insurance coverage.

Possibility to enhance service levels – Going to market through a joint RFP can achieve more competitive rates and attract highest-quality bidders.

Minimizing stress and burden on staff – Bringing the legal expertise in-house minimizes the burden on staff to perform administrative legal functions. As well, issuing a joint RFP through a centralized point of contact minimizes time spent on contract management and invoicing.

Improved communication and information sharing –Coordinating legal claims and advice across the Haliburton municipalities will support the municipalities’ in their goal to routinely and effectively share information.

Reduction in legal fees – As demonstrated in the previous slides, the Haliburton municipalities can achieve material expenditure reductions in legal fees by coordinating the delivery of these services.

Reduction in duplication of efforts – The Haliburton municipalities request similar general and specialized legal services and advice. Coordinating legal services can save direct staff time.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Coordinated Legal Services

Outlined below are the potential intermunicipal delivery options for the coordinated legal recommendations.


Local





services agreement



All Municipalities


Municipality

RFPs• By working

collaboratively on specialized legal RFPs, the municipalities are likely to achieve cost savings. NA NA

In House Counsel • This structure would allow

for all municipalities to have access to in-house services while paying their fair share for the service.

NA NANA

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Human Resources Coordination

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative Overview Human Resources Coordination

Description

Municipal Approvals

One Time Costs

Benefits Consultant $45,000

Each Haliburton community offers human resource and employee benefit services differently. This initiative looks to (i) pool employee benefits to lower premiums and risk for each community, (ii) explore outsourcing some HR operations functions to support HR staff and senior leadership perform more value-added work, (iii) create shared service agreements for strategic HR functions (senior leadership recruitment and succession planning) and (iv) explore the benefits of a integrated HRIS system to improve staff productivity. These recommendations would support reducing expenditures in some areas and improving service levels in others.

Other Benefits • There will be increased coordination between communities through the working

group. This will improve staff productivity and service outcomes. • By pooling benefits, all communities will decrease their risk exposure.

Benefits Overview

Total Annual Savings – Dark Green

County of Haliburton $26,000





Total $102,000

Municipal Approvals

Participating municipalities approve RFP and provider. 1

Option One: Pooling Benefits

Option Two: HR Shared Services

County Council to create and approve a new shared service agreement.

Local municipalities approve and participate in shared service.

2

3

Option Three: Outsourcing/HRIS Technology

Participating municipalities explore outsourcing and/or HRIS options.

4


Initiative


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


PEOPLE• Outsourcing HR functions for Haliburton communities would likely free HR and senior

staff to perform other strategic municipal work. • Create an inter-municipal working group to support HR functions.


• Hire a benefits consultant to support the coordination of pooling benefits. • Establish a shared service agreement between the County and participating Halliburton

municipalities for project-based HR work (senior level recruitment, succession planning).

TECHNOLOGY

• Explore the benefits of procuring a joint HRIS system for all Haliburton municipalities to improve productivity and service levels.

Initiative Overview Human Resources Coordination


Activities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Issue RFP and Pool Benefits

Create Cross Municipal HR Working Group

Establish HR as a Shared Service

Explore Outsourcing and/or Implementing a HRIS System

RISKS AND BARRIERS


• Financial return of pooling benefits: While Elgin municipalities that entered the consortium experienced savings from 5% to 10% depending the size of the employer and the individual groups’ claims patterns, it is possible that the Haliburton municipalities do not receive the same benefit. However, regardless of immediate financial return, pooling benefits will decrease risk for each community.

• Timing on pooled benefits: As mentioned by staff during the workshop, some communities have recently switched benefits providers. This may negatively impact the rates provided by new providers. As a result, this initiative has been implemented over a longer time period to account for this barrier.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 1: Municipal Examples of County Pooled Benefits Human Resources Coordination

Counties and municipalities across Ontario have demonstrated the feasibility of entering and maintaining a benefits consortium to reduce costs.

Elgin County, Perth and Huron Counties and their local municipal partners have established benefits consortiums and experienced tremendous benefit. Haliburton could follow a similar approach to lower expenditures and risk.

Elgin County

• Elgin County and six of its seven local municipal partners participate in a benefits consortium that was established 25-years ago.

• The broker of the consortium estimated that municipalities that entered the consortium experienced savings from 5% to 10% depending on the size of the employer and the individual groups claiming patterns.

• The member municipalities of this consortium have different plans and labour units. Each municipality can build custom plans that meets their needs.

• For all communities, they are experiencing reduced risk exposure especially in the event of a long-term disability claim or an expensive medical treatment (multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, etc.)

Perth and Huron Counties

• The counties of Perth and Huron, their local municipal partners, and other area public sector organizations are part of one benefits consortium.

• This consortium has moved to a self funding model in which premiums are managed by the consortium.

• In conversations with North Perth, who recently joined, they were experiencing double digit increases in their renewals. Since joining the consortium, they have been able to maintain the same price for renewals while improving coverage.

• The member municipalities of this consortium have different plans and labour units. Each municipality can build custom plans that meets their needs.

• Huron and Perth Counties have a governance structure composed of member municipalities. This consortium looks to expanding membership.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 1: Benefits Consortium Pooling Benefits and CostsHuman Resources Coordination

Outlined below are the estimated savings per municipality by pooling benefits. We have estimated a benefits savings of 7.5% for local municipalities. As the County has a more diverse workforce (paramedic staff), we have estimated savings of 5%. In addition, all communities would have better risk exposure coverage.

Employee Benefits

Algonquin Highlands Dysart et al Highlands East Minden Hills County of Haliburton

Current Cost $200,000 $300,000 $230,000 $290,000 $517,000

Savings 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 5%

Total Annual Savings $15,000 $22,000 $17,000 $22,000 $26,000

One Time Costs

Costs Rationale

Employee Benefits Consultants

$45,000 • In conversations with employee benefits consultants, a 3% commission is a standard charge.

Considerations • We recommend the municipalities hire a benefits consultant to support the implementation of this part of the initiative. The consultant would have the necessary expertise

and capacity. To do this, the communities would issue a joint RFP. • Haliburton municipalities could also explore the benefits of administrative service only plans. • Each community should also review when they last updated their benefits plans as it will affect pricing.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 2: Exploring Outsourcing Operational HR Functions Human Resources Coordination

Central Frontenac, a community of roughly 5,000 residents, has outsourced their operational HR functions. As many Haliburton municipalities have identified the time needed to complete these functions can prevent more strategic, managerial HR work from being completed in a timely manner (succession planning, etc.), Haliburton municipalities could explore outsourcing these functions through a joint RFP.

Third Party Services Provided to Central Frontenac

• Employment agreements;

• Policy manual development;

• Compliant job evaluation and pay equity maintenance;

• New hire reference checks, offer preparation, on-boarding via online resource and hard-copy file preparation;

• Ongoing maintenance of current policy manual to ensure its fully compliant from a human resource and health and safety perspective;

• Maintain alignment of organizational charts;

• Employee training required from a regulatory perspective (AODA, WHMIS, workplace harassment prevention, and health and safety)

• Training database and tracking;

• Automated performance appraisals;

• Absence reporting and tracking (vacation, sick days, lieu-time);

• Corrective action documentation;

• Digital employee file coordination; and

• Personal human resource dashboards for every employee and fully supported administrative control.

The service provider charges approximately $15,000 annually for municipalities with 30 employees or less.

Benefits for Haliburton municipalities

• For communities without HR staff, this would allow their senior leadership to focus on more value-added work.

• For communities with HR staff, there is only one staff member per community to perform these functions, which can take significant time. This prevents them from completing more value-added work. By using a third-party provider, it would improve these service levels for staff, and allow HR staff to focus on higher-value work (succession planning, professional development, emergency preparedness, etc.)

• If multiple Haliburton municipalities are interested in outsourcing some of the HR operations, a joint RFP could be created. This could allow for reduced third-party costs and increased standardization between municipalities.

By outsourcing HR operational functions, Haliburton municipalities could increase HR service levels.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Recommendation 3: Establish HR as a Shared and Integrated Service Human Resources Coordination

The County and Haliburton municipalities could establish a shared service agreement for strategic HR functions (senior recruitment, succession planning, etc.), establish an HR working group for a more formalized channel to share knowledge, and explore an integrated HRIS system to improve productivity.

Shared Service and HR Working Group

Create formalized shared service agreements for strategic HR functions.

• From staff interviews, some Haliburton municipalities need support for senior management recruitment, succession planning, policy creation, and investigations.

• The County HR’s service could support other Haliburton municipalities with this function through a cost-recovery shared service agreement.

• The County employee would work with the client municipality and ensure their feedback on local nuances.

• The major constraint will be the County’s one staff member. If this shared service is used widely and frequently by Haliburton municipalities it may justify an additional hire.

• In addition, an intermunicipal HR working group could be established to support communities in developing and sharing policies, coordinating legislated training more frequently between communities, and promote knowledge transfer. This committee could meet once every two months to make sure it is as helpful as possible, while not making it too burdensome.

Integrated HRIS System

Explore a joint HRIS system to improve data quality and staff productivity.

• HR services across Haliburton use many manual processes.

• The municipalities could explore implementing a joint HRIS system to improve productivity. However, this should be explored in tandem with the outsourcing of operational HR tasks to find which service better meets the needs of the municipalities.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Human Resources Coordination

This initiative has a range of intermunicipal delivery options from shared services to integration of HR services.


Local





services agreement



All Municipalities


Municipality

HR Working Group • This component would

promote formalized collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Pooled Benefits • Municipalities would agree

to pool benefits to reduce costs while respecting their individual needs (current plan structure, labour considerations). NA

HR Consulting • For strategic HR functions,

the County would provide participating municipalities project-based HR work on a cost recovery basis.

HRIS System • If an HRIS system is

implemented, it could be costed through a shared service agreement.

HRIS System • If an HRIS system is

implemented, it could be costed through the County levy

NA

Outsourced HR Operations • Communities could

outsource HR operations to a third-party provider to improve staff productivity.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Communication

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


The Haliburton municipalities have identified gaps in their ability to deliver coordinated communications to residents. The communication initiative would address this gap by creating an FTE dedicated to communications and grant writing. This position would focus on internal and external communications support for all Haliburton municipalities. The remaining time associated with this FTE would be dedicated to grant writing. This would address both a perceived capacity gap in county-wide communications management and offset the costs of the new position through enhanced grant revenues.

Initiative Overview Communication

Description

Municipal Approvals

Determine if position would be paid for through the levy or shared service agreement

County Council approves new position

1

2

Municipalities would enter into and implement a shared service agreement (if necessary, based on determination of structure)

3

Benefits Overview

Benefits • Improved external communications: This position would support external

communications for all municipalities. This would allow the municipalities to not only improve their external communications but also support message consistency between municipalities.

• Improved internal communications: This position would have the capacity and capabilities to improve internal communication in specific municipalities and across municipalities. Areas that this new position could focus on could include support for emergency management to ensure coordination and information sharing between the municipalities.

• Grant writing capacity: This position would also support grant writing for all municipalities. This position would help identify and coordinate potential grant submissions for individual municipalities and support collaborative efforts on grants.

Description


Initiative


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Improving CommunicationsCommunication

None of the Haliburton municipalities have a dedicated resource or position for internal and external communications, with responsibilities for day to day communications and social media dispersed amongst senior leadership and elected officials. This contributes to reactive approaches to communications and at times disjointed messaging between the municipalities. As evidenced by other municipalities in Ontario, there is an opportunity to centralize the delivery of these services through a role dedicated to communications and grant writing. A Communications Officer/Grant Writer could also be responsible for coordinating the communications efforts of the five CEMCs to support consistent messaging.

County of Renfrew

Renfrew County utilizes a joint Media Relations/Grant Coordinator position to manage internal and external communications and coordinate grant applications on behalf of the County. From a communications perspective, the role is responsible for marketing, policy development and analysis, public and media relations, corporate communications internally and externally, communications and crisis communications strategy, as well as social media. They have reported that this role supports proactive approaches to communications issues, as well as government advocacy.

From a grant writing perspective, this Coordinator does not write all of the grants on behalf of the County or the lower-tier municipalities. The role functions as an internal consultant for County and lower-tier staff to provide advice and resources to improve the effectiveness of their grant applications. They report about a 45-50% success rate for awarding of grant funding and apply to 90-95% of grants they would be eligible for.

Implications: • This integrated position demonstrates the complimentary skill sets of

communications, government advocacy, and grant writing, and its importance to driving strategic objectives for the County and the local municipalities.

Cost Benefit Analysis

ANNUAL COSTS

Salary Range1 $58,000 - $65,000

30% administrative overhead $17,400 - $19,500

Total Cost Per Annum $75,000 - $84,500

BENEFITS

Improved access to grant revenues2 $85,000 - $253,500

Net Annual Benefits $0 - $169,000

1Based on salary range of comparator municipalities.

• Based on the experiences of comparable municipalities, including the Town of Newmarket, this position should operate at a full cost recovery basis, with the position’s salary offset by improved access to grant funding.

• The Haliburton municipalities could first retain this new position on a contracted basis and evaluate whether this position is still operating at full cost recovery (based on the net difference in grant revenues) before formalizing this position as full-time.

• This position could also support the municipalities in succession planning for key communications functions, such as media relations, social media, etc. that are currently dispersed amongst leadership and elected officials.

• This position would also support CEMCs in coordinating communications across Haliburton during an emergency and would review policies for consistency, accuracy, and recency

2Comparator municipalities report that a dedicated Grant Writer generates revenues from grants greater than or equal to three times their salary. However, we conservatively estimated that this position will cover their salary.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Intermunicipal Delivery Options Communication

Outlined below are the potential intermunicipal delivery options for both the Communication and Coordination sub-initiatives.


Local





services agreement



All Municipalities


Municipality

NA NA NA

Communications/Grant Writer• The County could create a

shared service agreement• Individual municipalities

would be charged back for their use of the positions

• This may promote fairness between the municipalities, but may be more complex in implementation

Communications/Grant Writer• This position could be

charged on the levy • This would be simpler in

terms of implementation, but may not be perceived as fair if one or more municipalities use this position more than the others

NANA

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Coordination

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Initiative Overview Coordination

Coordination: The Haliburton municipalities have embraced a culture of collaboration to improve service delivery, but currently lack formal mechanisms to implement available opportunities. This report has the potential to add a significant number of initiatives that will require follow-up. This initiative would improve the capacity of Haliburton to move from opportunity identification to implementation of identified opportunities in a manner that builds on your own best practices and respects the realities of your county system. Improved information sharing: County councillors also serve as members of local Councils. During COVID-19, it was noted that ideas sometimes emerge at County Council meetings about possible coordinated approaches to common problems, which would then need to be approved by local Councils through due process. At present, there is not an effective mechanism for communicating these ideas to local councils for their consideration..

Description

Municipal Approvals

To improve information sharing on minor matters, adopt the practice of creating a new standing agenda item for the Haliburton County Council to discuss and refer suggested common approaches for the consideration of local municipalities.

To improve the capacity of the Haliburton municipalities to consider the implementation of collaboration opportunities, create an Implementation Committee of County Council, that would adopt special practices and procedures to promote effective collaboration among the county and local municipalities.

1

2

Benefits Overview

Benefits • Many of the matters contained in this report would require the concurrence of

each of the County and the four local municipalities. To facilitate joint consideration of these initiatives, it is desirable to create norms and practices around the creation of common information to assist officials and decision-makers in each municipality.

• Haliburton already demonstrated a transparent approach to collaboration when it invited all local council members to the decision-making around this project. This approach could be considered a best practice that could facilitate decision-making on issues of collaboration, where it is warranted by the importance of the issue.

• Norms or “conventions” could include staff reports prepared by intermunicipal working groups, signed off by all CAOs, and shared with each municipalities


Initiative


Description

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


PEOPLE

• No change in staffing would result from these decisions.• There would be an increase in liaison work between the County and the local

municipalities, which could be accommodated through existing regular meetings of the CAOs.

• Intermunicipal Departmental Working Groups would be needed to create common fact bases to inform staff reports. Pace of staff report requirements would have to be taken into account in overall work plan, and would have an effect on the overall pace of considering the implementation of this report.


• Governance: Neither change would purport to alter the actual decision-making authority for matters, which would still rest with each council

• Process: Adoption of Implementation Committee concept will require some effort in terms of organizing and attending but common the creation of common approaches and fact bases should promote the success of the overall decision-making process, and result in fewer “non-decisions.”

• Process: Creating of new standing agenda item (Matters for Referral) may add some time to County Council Meetings, but should help prevent identified problems

Initiative Overview OPERATING CONSIDERATIONS RISKS AND BARRIERS

• Administrative challenge of coordination: Often, staff identify that the main challenge inhibiting increased coordination and formalized collaboration processes is administrative support to organize routine meetings and communications.

• To minimize the administrative burden on any one staff member, the Haliburton municipalities could use the new communications FTE position to support coordination of the Councils, CAOs, and working groups

• Manage overall implementation schedule to ensure that burden of decision-making support (writing reports) and decision-making (attending meetings) is sustainable and not excessive for elected members or staff.

Coordination


Secure approvals for new standing agenda item for the County Council Committee of the Whole

Create a Collaboration Implementation Committee


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


CAOs’ Committee

Implementation Committee

Intermunicipal Working Groups

CAO CAO CAO CAO CAO

Subject Experts

Subject Experts

Subject Experts

Subject Experts

Subject Experts


These changes are further explored on the next slide.

Improving Coordination (1/2)Coordination

Outlined below will establish a new structure of intermunicipal cooperation and process.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Improving Coordination (1/3) Coordination

Implementation of inter-municipal initiatives will require expanded use of existing norms and practices at the staff, CAO and Council levels

Collaboration among municipalities requires the ability to look outside one’s own borders and imagine how things would be if they were not as they are now. That is not something that most municipalities have the luxury to do as a normal, day-to-day task. We tend to focus on the reality of what is…not what might be, and whether something else would be better. To achieve that “could we do better” focus requires effort at the staff, CAO and Council level.

1. Intermunicipal Staff Working Groups: Working groups of relevant cross-functional subject experts should be established to support implementation analysis of collaboration efforts.

These working groups would have representatives from each Haliburton municipality, as required by the circumstance. They would meet only as required to achieve relevant deliverables associated with collaboration.

For decision-making support, the task would be to develop a common fact base for collaborative initiatives. The ideal would be a common report and common recommendations to support Council deliberations, but it must be understood that from time to time, local interests may lead to differences of opinion about the implications for recommendations – even if everyone is seeing the same facts. That is be expected and must be accommodated as circumstances arise. But there can be no effective decision making without a common fact base.

For implementation support, the task would be managing the operational implications of initiatives undertaken.

Not every improvement initiative identified in this service delivery review would require a this sort of Working Group. Suggested groups to start for short-term implementations include: Public Works, Building and Bylaw, Planning, IT (see initiative), and Human Resources.

Logistics: Terms of refence, chairmanship etc. would be determined pursuant to agreed upon protocols, having due regard to work-load, fairness etc.

2. CAO Committee: The CAOs of Haliburton already meet regularly and the increased use of digital meetings caused by the COVID response has reduced the barriers of distance and time for this sort of regular engagement. The CAOs will be essential as a clearing house for the outputs of the Working Groups. As with the Working Groups, it must be understood that local interests may lead to differences of opinion about the implications for recommendations.

The Committee would also serve as a place to evaluate progress and effectiveness of implementation. I will also be a forum for discussing any items arising from the County Council standing agenda item, Matters to Refer to Local Haliburton Municipalities, and address discussions at the Implementation Committee.

Logistics: The Committee would continue to meet as they think best (remotely; weekly or bi-weekly) but with a new standing agenda item to discuss the meeting minutes from the Committee of the Whole and any areas for intermunicipal collaboration as discussed. On a rotating basis, the meeting would be extended to discuss the operationalization of these improvement initiatives.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141



To foster transparent discussion of policy options around collaboration, we suggest the creation of a County Council Implementation Committee.

3. County Council Implementation Committee:

Depending on the decision to be taken, approval could take anything from:

• a triple majority vote as described in the Municipal Act for service migration,

• individual votes of participating municipalities for entry into shared service agreements

• Informal administrative agreements on simple matters of administrative cooperation or collaboration.

Whatever form of approval may be needed, however, the policy decision to consider approvals would be facilitated by having a forum for policy discussion.

• The Haliburton municipalities have councils to make internal decisions.

• The Haliburton municipalities do not have a purpose-built structure for supporting inter-municipal decision making.

This gap could be filled by the creation of a County Council Implementation Committee.

This would be a standing committee of County Council to which would be referred policy discussions about intermunicipal collaboration initiatives. The committee would be composed of all County Council members. It would adopt the convention of inviting local Council members to participate in a non-voting capacity where appropriate.

The purpose of this approach is to supplement the effectiveness and transparency of intermunicipal decision-making, and not to alter or replace normal decision-making procedures. Voting by County Councillors would occur in the normal fashion and would only be relevant for County decision-making. Any matters requiring local approval would still require local approval, as required by the Municipal Act.

The mandate of the Committee would be limited to the consideration of matters that relate to decision-making inter-municipal collaboration.

To ensure a common fact base, decision-making would be supported by materials created by inter-municipal working groups and signed off by the CAOs committee.

Participation by local municipal representatives would be to ensure that issues are surfaced in an open and transparent fashion.

Logistics: The committee would meet on an as needed basis. The cadence of meeting would be determined by County Council as well as participation. Staff could report into this committee on progress of the intermunicipal working groups.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141



• During COVID-19, it was noted that ideas sometimes emerge at County Council meetings about possible coordinated approaches to common problems, which would then need to be approved by local Councils through due process.

• At present, there is not an effective mechanism for capturing these ideas and communicating them in a consistent form to local councils for their consideration. As a result, some opportunities for potential common action may be unrealized.

• By creating an appropriate channel to memorialize and communicate these ideas, it should contribute to solving the current observed gap

Current State Challenges

A new standing agenda item could be added to the Haliburton County Council Committee of the Whole meetings, Matters to Refer to Local Haliburton Municipalities for their consideration.

Leveraging the regularly scheduled meetings of the CAO Committee, the CAOs will begin the first meeting immediately following Committee of the Whole by discussing any potential action items for staff and Senior Leadership as a result of the discussions during Committee of the Whole.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141

Appendix B: Benefit by Municipality

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Each of the Haliburton municipalities has the ability to potentially increase revenues and achieve direct “dark green savings” and/or “light green” productivity gains from the resulting benefits of each of the twelve improvement initiatives identified in this report. The total benefit of each initiative varies from municipality to municipality given the unique considerations for each, as well as the suite of services that they offer.

Section Overview Benefit by Municipality

Section Explanation :

• The following five pages highlight the benefits per initiative for each municipality, including high-level examples of initiatives that are most impactful given the potential for cost savings, productivity gains, or feedback throughout the engagement period.

• We have also outlined key qualitative impacts of the initiatives for each municipality.

• In the appendices, each initiative and its potential benefits are explained in further detail.

For more detail about each initiative, see the appendix.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


The County could save $110K in direct annual costs, and yield $37K in productivity gains. In addition, service benefits specific to the County are outlined below.

Highlights for the County

Benefit by Municipality

While these are just some of the benefits, all benefits for the County per initiative can be found in the appendix.

Initiative Impact for the County pg. Revenues Savings Productivity

Roads, Bridges, and Drainage 20 - $225K -

Fire Services 31 - - -

Waste Management 39 - - -


47 - - -

Planning Services 60 - $(13K) $37K

Economic Development 76 - $(200K) -

Collaborative Procurement 96 - $ 69K -

Integrated Digital Strategy 105 - - -

Coordinating Legal Services 111 - $3K -

Human Resources Coordination 120 - $26K -

Communications 128 - - -

Coordination 130 - - -

Total - $110K $37K

Initiative Highlights

Economic Development – This report suggests the County provides this service. This would allow the County to participate in economic development initiatives and support its local municipal partners.

Roads and Bridges – All Haliburton municipalities would benefit from pooling capital projects to achieve savings. As the County has a large capital roads expenditure, it would see the largest benefit from this initiative.

Communications & Coordination – The coordination initiative creates structures across the Council and staff departments to implement these initiatives. In addition, the communications initiative suggests hiring a Communications Officer/Grant Writer to support internal and external communications and write municipal grants to offset new employee costs.

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Algonquin Highlands could generate approximately $8K in additional revenues, save $174K in direct annual costs, and yield $46K in productivity gains. In addition, service benefits specific to Algonquin Highlands are outlined below.

Highlights for Algonquin Highlands


While these are just some of the benefits, all benefits for Algonquin Highlands per initiative can be found in the appendix.


Fire Services – This initiative would see Algonquin Highland’s fire expenditure decrease as it would be integrating its Fire Trainer Position to serve all Haliburton municipalities.

Building, Septic, and Bylaw – By moving to a County model, Algonquin Highlands could achieve a cost-neutral service for building and septic service, and potentially improve bylaw services.

Legal – Algonquin Highlands currently has the highest legal third-party expenditure of all the Haliburton municipalities. By creating a shared in-house counsel position, Algonquin Highlands could reduce expenditures and increase service levels.

Initiative Impact for Algonquin Highlands pg. Revenues Savings Productivity


Fire Services 31 - $38K -



47 - $10K -

Planning Services 60 $8K $(2K) $26K

Economic Development 76 - - -


Integrated Digital Strategy 105 - - $20K





Total $8K $174K $46K

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Dysart et al could generate approximately $30K in additional revenues, save $271K in direct annual costs, and yield $59K in productivity gains. In addition, service benefits specific to Dysart et al are outlined below.

Highlights for Dysart et al


While these are just some of the benefits, all benefits for Dysart et al per initiative can be found in the appendix.


Procurement – As a larger local Haliburton municipality, Dysart et al would benefit from the collaborative procurement initiative to support the municipality in strategic and collaborative purchasing.

Waste Management – Dysart et al could experience cost reductions if it partnered with Highlands East on a shared service agreement for the Harcourt/Mumford Road landfills. This would have minimal impact on customer service as the landfills are close in proximity.

Planning – Dysart et al is experiencing a lot of development. By participating with the other municipalities in hiring a shared planning resource, Dysart et al’s planning department would increase its capacity to better meet local demand. In addition, Dysart et al has generally lower planning fees. If they were standardized across the County to better account for cost recovery, Dysart et al would generate more planning revenue.

Initiative Impact for Dysart et al pg. Revenues Savings Productivity



Waste Management 39 - $25K -


47 - - -

Planning Services 60 $30K $(13K) $36K

Economic Development 76 - - -


Integrated Digital Strategy 105 - - $23K





Total $30K $271K $59K

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Highlands East could generate approximately $13K in additional revenues, save $183K in direct annual costs, and yield $30K in productivity gains. In addition, service benefits specific to Highlands East are outlined below.

Highlights for Highlands East


While these are just some of the benefits, all benefits for Highlands East per initiative can be found in the appendix.


Planning – By exploring a joint planning position, Highlands East could reduce its third-party planning expenditures while having improved access to a planner.

Waste Management – Highlands East could experience cost reductions if it partnered with Dysart et al on a shared service agreement for the Harcourt/Mumford Road landfills. This would have minimal impact on customer service as the landfills are close in proximity.

Building, Septic and Bylaw – By moving to a County model, Highlands East could achieve a cost-neutral service for building and septic service.

Initiative Impact for Highlands East pg. Revenues Savings Productivity


Fire Services 31 - $(31K) -

Waste Management 39 - $25K -


47 - $15K -

Planning Services 60 - $21K -

Economic Development 76 $13K - $13K

Collaborative Procurement 96 - $62K -


Coordinating Legal Services 111 - $6K $17K




Total $13K $183K $30K

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


Minden Hills could generate approximately $23K in additional revenues, save $226K in direct annual costs, and yield $39K in productivity gains. In addition, service benefits specific to Minden Hills are outlined below.

Highlights for Minden Hills


While these are just some of the benefits, all benefits for Minden Hills per initiative can be found in the appendix.


Fire Services– This initiative would see Minden Hill’s fire expenditure decrease as it would be integrating its Deputy Fire Chief to serve all Haliburton municipalities. In addition, it would support intermunicipal partnerships for a potential training facility.

Planning – By participating with the other municipalities in creating one Official Plan, Minden Hills would be able to reduce expenditures and improve staff productivity without sacrificing local control through the creation of Secondary Plans. In addition, Minden Hills has generally lower planning fees. If they were standardized across the County to better account for cost recovery, Minden Hills would generate more planning revenue.

Legal – By creating a shared in-house counsel position, Minden Hills could reduce expenditures and increase service levels.

Initiative Impact for Minden Hills pg. Revenues Savings Productivity





47 - - -

Planning Services 60 - $(2K) -

Economic Development 76 $23K - $20K

Collaborative Procurement 96 - $75K -


Coordinating Legal Services 111 - $12K $19K




Total $23K $226K $39K

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141


The potential benefits of participating in each initiative varies by community and are detailed in the initiative deep dive section.

Breakdown of Savings by Initiative

Initiative pg. Municipalities Annual Benefits

County Algonquin Highlands Dysart et al Highlands East Minden Hills

Rev Saving Product Rev Saving Product Rev Saving Product Rev Saving Product Rev Saving Product

Roads, Bridges, and Drainage 20 - $225K - - $42K - - $83K - - $68K - - $92K -

Fire Services 31 - - - - $38K - - $28K - - ($31K) - - $27K -

Waste Management 39 - - - - - - - $25K - - $25K - - - -


47 - - - - $10K - - - - - $15K - - - -

Planning Services 60 - $(13K) $37K $8K $(2K) $26K $30K $(13K) $36K $18K $21K $13K $23K $(2K) $20K

Economic Development 76 - $(200K) - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Collaborative Procurement 96 - $ 69K - - $ 45K - - $ 121K - - $62K - - $75K -

Integrated Digital Strategy 105 - - - - - $20K - - $23K - - $17K - - $19K

Coordinating Legal Services 111 - $3K - - $26K - - $5K - - $6K - - $12K -

Human Resources Coordination

120 - $26K - - $15K - - $22K - - $17K - - $22K -

Communications 128 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Coordination 130 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total - $110K $37K $8K $174K $46K $30K $271K $59K $13K $183K $30K $23K $226K $39K


Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141

Toronto145 King Street East, 2nd Floor

Toronto, ON M5C 2Y7416-864-7112

Ottawa100 rue Queen Street, Suite 850

Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9613-231-2630

strategycorp.com

Service Delivery R

eview - Final R

eport Strategy Corp

of 141

CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF HALIBURTON

BY-LAW NO. 4021

BEING A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNTY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Section 238 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.0.2001, c.25 as amended, requires that every Council and Local Board shall adopt a by-law for governing the calling, place and proceedings of meetings, AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the County of Haliburton has enacted By-law No. 4006 pursuant to Section 238(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended for such purpose, AND WHEREAS the procedural by-law identifies the practice of enacting a confirming by-law at the conclusion of each meeting for purposes of ratifying the resolutions and by-laws, NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF HALIBURTON ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. THAT the resolutions approved by the County of Haliburton on the 25th

day of November, 2020 are hereby confirmed; and 2. THAT the resolutions approved and by-laws enacted by the County of

Haliburton this 25th day of November, 2020 are hereby confirmed; and

3. THAT the employees and servants of the County of Haliburton have the authority to proceed to implement the direction of Council as indicated by resolution and by-law.

READ a first and second time this 25th day of November, 2020. READ a third time and finally passed this 25th day of November, 2020. __________________________________ Liz Danielsen, Warden ___________________________________ Michael Rutter, CAO/Clerk

By-law 4021 - being a By-law to Confirm theProceedings of the November ... of 141

County of Haliburton

Documents

Transcript of County of Haliburton