THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA DISTRICT ... - CivicWeb

THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA

DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING NO. 14(2015)

A G E N D A

7:00 p.m., Monday, October 19, 2015 District Council Chamber

(6:30 – 7:00 p.m. – Chair and senior staff available to answer Councillors’ questions) CALL TO ORDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA

DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS CEREMONIAL AND INVITED PRESENTATIONS a) Dr. David Mathies Rick Williams, Commissioner of Community Services Cheryl Faber, Muskoka Health Link Project Manager Muskoka Community Health Link b) Muskoka Community Health Link – Our Health. Our Future. Report No. 14(2015)-2 Recommendation

THAT Muskoka District Council support the concept and the decision of the Muskoka Community Health Link Steering Committee to proceed with local community engagement for the purpose of the development of a Preliminary Design Framework for a Muskoka-wide Integrated and Sustainable Health System titled Our Health. Our Future.; AND THAT Muskoka District Council support having the Our Health. Our Future. presentation provided to each of the local municipal Councils in Muskoka by March, 2016.

ORAL PRESENTATIONS (DEPUTATIONS/DELEGATIONS) a) John Challis, President Muskoka Trails Council

Recommendation

THAT the request by John Challis for leave to make a delegation/deputation with respect to the Muskoka Trails Council priorities be granted.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS – REVIEW OF MINUTES FOR CORRECTNESS

a) 13(2015) – September 21, 2015

COMMITTEE REPORTS a) Engineering & Public Works – PW-12-2015 – September 21, 2015 i) Review of Minutes for Correctness ii) Committee Report b) Community Services – CS-10-2015 – September 23, 2015 i) Review of Minutes for Correctness ii) Committee Report c) Planning & Economic Development – PED-11-2015 – September 24, 2015 i) Review of Minutes for Correctness ii) Committee Report d) Corporate & Emergency Services – CES-11-2015 – September 21, 2015 i) Review of Minutes for Correctness ii) Committee Report CORRESPONDENCE/WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS – All correspondence listed is a matter of public record. Should any member of Council or the public wish to receive full copies, please contact the Clerk’s department. MOTIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS

a) Upcoming Contract Awards – Engineering and Public Works

Contracts for the following works will be recommended for award by the Engineering

& Public Works Committee at its October 21, 2015 meeting in accordance with sections 6.4(iii) and 6.24 of Schedule A to Procurement By-law 2004-74, as amended:

i) Contract No. 15-313-160 – Muskoka Road 3, Bridge Backwall Rehabilitation –

Township of Muskoka Lakes ii) Amendment to Award of Contract No. 15-311-159 – Installation of Box Culvert

on Muskoka Road 24 (Dee Bank Road) – Township of Muskoka Lakes

b) Provincial Review of Municipal Legislation Municipal Act, 2001, Municipal Conflict of Interest Act Report No. 14(2015)-1 Recommendation

THAT Muskoka District Council endorses the ‘Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s (AMO) Submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Concerning the 2015 Municipal Act Five-year Review and Conflict of Interest Review’ dated September 8, 2015 (as attached);

AND THAT Muskoka District Council endorses the ‘Municipal Legislation Review Submission’ prepared by the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario (MFOA) dated October 2015 (as attached); AND THAT Muskoka District Council recommends that the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to include a broad power to impose municipal income, sales and excise taxes in a shared arrangement with the Federal and Provincial governments;

AND THAT this resolution be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to complement and inform its current review of these major pieces of Provincial legislation.

BY-LAWS

IMPLEMENTATION BY-LAWS 2015-50 Being a by-law to establish a Reserve Fund for certain purposes 3 readings (The Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund) CONFIRMING BY-LAW 2015-51 Being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of 1 reading The District Municipality of Muskoka at this meeting held

on the 19th day of October, 2015

ADJOURNMENT

This agenda can be viewed in a larger font by increasing the magnification of the page. Please note that hearing-assistive devices are available in the Council Chamber.

TO: Chair and Members Muskoka District Council FROM: Cheryl Faber Project Manager, Muskoka Community Health Link DATE: October 19, 2015 SUBJECT: Muskoka Community Health Link – Our Health. Our Future. REPORT NO: 14(2015)-2 ___________________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION THAT Muskoka District Council support the concept and the decision of the Muskoka Community Health Link Steering Committee to proceed with local community engagement for the purpose of the development of a Preliminary Design Framework for a Muskoka-wide Integrated and Sustainable Health System titled Our Health. Our Future.; AND THAT Muskoka District Council support having the Our Health. Our Future. presentation provided to each of the local municipal Councils in Muskoka by March, 2016. BACKGROUND Muskoka Community Health Link is funded by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) through the North Simcoe Muskoka Local Health Integration Network (LHIN). The funding flows directly to the District Municipality of Muskoka as a funded health service provider with a signed accountability agreement with the North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN. A steering committee of staff from participating organizations has been created (see Figure 1 – Committee Structure and Business Plan Priorities). Figure 1 – Muskoka Health Link Committee Structure and Business Plan Priorities

Muskoka Health Link Steering Committee is a partnership comprised of agencies representing various sectors across the continuum of care, including acute care, community and home care, emergency services, long-term care, mental health and addiction services, primary care, and social services. Members include: Algonquin Family Health Team Canadian Mental Health Association, Muskoka Parry-Sound Cottage Country Family Health Team District Municipality of Muskoka, Community Services Department Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare North Muskoka Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic North Simcoe Muskoka Community Care Access Centre North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN The District Municipality of Muskoka acts as the Chair of the Muskoka Health Link Steering Committee in order to facilitate the implementation of the Health Link business plan priorities and the process required to achieve the outcomes as defined in the plan. Aligned with the District’s Strategic Plan, the role of the District with Muskoka Health Link is instrumental to plan and design for the health of the population in Muskoka, now and into the future. The MOHLTC website indicates that “five per cent of patients account for two-thirds of health care costs. These are most often patients with multiple, complex conditions. When the hospital, the family doctor, the long-term care home, community organizations and others work as a team, the patient receives better, more coordinated care.” Muskoka Community Health Link is moving towards comprehensive coordinated care in which health, social and community service providers are accountable to meet the needs of individuals living with complex needs for improved health outcomes. Success has been demonstrated to date in Muskoka with thirty-three individuals with complex needs having a coordinated care plan in place, linked to a primary care provider (e.g. physician or nurse practitioner), individuals, families and caregivers are a part of the care planning process, relationships and communications between providers have strengthened, and gaps in the system are being identified in order to make improvements. The Muskoka Health Link Common Understanding and Alignment strategic planning session was held in April 2015. The Steering Committee discussed directions and outcomes for each of the business plan priorities, of which included articulating possible objectives for Our Health. Our Future. a Muskoka-wide Integrated and Sustainable Health System. The collective voice of partners indicated direction to: Improve our health care system. We are uniquely positioned to integrate care across sectors and

ministries; Create a shared vision of system integration that will truly change the patient experience in a

profound and positive manner; Enable silos and barriers to fall; Foster an integrated governance structure for Muskoka’s health system; Think differently about our health system and redesign it with our patients in order to meet their

needs, not ours or dictated by money (funding); Achieve the best results for our healthy population living in Muskoka; Build a sustainable system in Muskoka; Guarantee that people will be healthier, active and as independent as possible; Increase access to primary care, community care, long-term care, and urgent care in our community; Better coordinate and focus on transitions of care between providers or services; Understand duplication of services across providers; Streamline and create capacity in the system to help more people; and to Share in decision making as a collective partnership for health care in Muskoka.

The collective voice of partners, along with the positive relationships, trust and leadership that currently exist across providers, has resulted in the commitment to move forward with the overarching system-wide priority under Health Link. This decision aligns with and is enabled by the procedures outlined in the Local Health System Improvement Act (LHSIA, 2006) and partner’s Service Accountability Agreements with the LHIN or MOHLTC to continually explore opportunities for integration to create efficiencies for the local health system. The LHIN was informed of the Muskoka Health Link priority and in a meeting prior to the strategic planning session indicated agreement and alignment of the Our Health. Our Future. priority to that of the LHIN’s vision of establishing integrated networks of care in each sub-LHIN geographic area in North Simcoe Muskoka. Since April, the Steering Committee has developed an Our Health. Our Future. sub-committee to create a presentation which outlines the rationale for focusing on a Muskoka-wide Design Framework for an integrated and sustainable health system. Along with the presentation, an engagement strategy and a timeline has been established in order to engage key audiences that have a stake in the design of a Muskoka-wide future health system. This includes stakeholders both “inside” and “outside” of the health system. Innovation, improvements and integrations will be key to the design and requires broader engagement with the other sectors, including and not limited to economic development, education, employment, technology, municipal government, recreation, public health, etc. Continuing with a robust engagement process between now and the Spring of 2016, including an innovation conference in early spring would lead to the preliminary design framework for Our Health. Our Future. „Champions for Change‟ will be individuals from Muskoka that want to actively participate in the process to think and design differently by way of taking a system that is currently focused on disease care to one that is person-centred and meets their needs thus improving better outcomes for the health of our population. ANALYSIS Based on the discussion at Council after viewing the presentation, it would be requested that the same report and presentation be given to each of the individual Municipal Councils to garner feedback, input and ideas to support this priority moving forward. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS This project is to be based on full Provincial funding for the Health Links initiative. COMMUNICATIONS The presentation being given at District Council on October 19, 2015 will provide you with the information for discussion. It has been prepared by the Our Health. Our Future. Sub-Committee and has been shared with over 150 people to date. The presentation will entice new dialogue with all stakeholder audiences. The prepared engagement strategy will guide the discussions over the coming months.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Muskoka Community Health Link supports the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 6. Efficiently deliver community and human services with compassion and dignity while meeting the

unique needs of those being served. Focus the measurement of program success on outcomes for the various client programs.

Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Cheryl Faber Rick Williams Project Manager, Muskoka Health Link Commissioner of Community Services


DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING NO. 13(2015)

MINUTES

The Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka met in the Council Chamber, District Administration Building at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 2015. PRESENT: Deputy District Chair L. Giaschi-Pacini and all other members of

Council except District Chair J. Klinck, S. Clement, P. Donaldson OFFICIALS PRESENT: M. Duben, Chief Administrative Officer; J. Stevens, Commissioner of

Finance & Corporate Services; F. Jahn, Commissioner of Engineering & Public Works; S. Hastings, Commissioner of Planning & Economic Development; R. Williams, Commissioner of Community Services; D. Crowder, District Clerk

ALSO PRESENT: A. Landry, Director, Human Resources; M. Ross, Communications

Officer CALL TO ORDER Deputy Chair Giaschi-Pacini called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA Deputy Chair Giaschi-Pacini noted that there were no additional agenda items. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS Councillor G. Smith declared a pecuniary interest with respect to the award of Contract Nos. 15-311-115, 15-311-116 and 15-311-159 within the Engineering and Public Works Committee minutes due to a contractual relationship. Councillor Aitchison declared a pecuniary interest with respect to the award of Contract Nos. 15-311-115, 15-311-116 and 15-311-159 within the Engineering and Public Works Committee minutes due to a business relationship. PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS – REVIEW OF MINUTES FOR CORRECTNESS a) 12(2015) – August 24, 2015

No errors or omissions. COMMITTEE REPORTS a) Engineering & Public Works – PW-11-2015 – August 26, 2015 i) Review of Minutes for Correctness

No errors or omissions. ii) Committee Report Councillor Harding highlighted the minutes of the August 26, 2015 meeting of the

Engineering & Public Works Committee. Moved by P. Harding and seconded by P. Kelly P151/2015 THAT all recommendations contained

in the minutes of the Engineering & Public Works Committee meeting No. PW-11-2015 held on August 26, 2015 BE ADOPTED.

Carried. b) Engineering & Public Works – PW-12-2015 – September 21, 2015 The following item was considered at a Committee meeting prior to Council and was for

Council’s consideration: i) Closure of Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road) and Muskoka Road 13

(Southwood Road) Report No. PW-12-2015-6 Moved by S. Baker and seconded by R. Nishikawa 152/2015

THAT permission BE GRANTED to close Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road) at the Muskoka Road 10 Bridge (Structure 010042) between 12:00 a.m. on October 13, 2015 and 5:00 p.m. on November 23, 2015 to accommodate the rehabilitation of this structure; AND THAT permission BE GRANTED to close Muskoka Road 13 (Southwood Road) at Jevins Creek Bridge (Structure 013099) between 12:00 a.m. on October 5, 2015 and 5:00 p.m. on December 18, 2015 to accommodate the replacement of this structure. Carried.

c) Community Services – CS-9-2015 – August 26, 2015 i) Review of Minutes for Correctness No errors or omissions.

ii) Committee Report Councillor Lacroix highlighted the minutes of the August 26, 2015 meeting of the

Community Services Committee. Moved by R. Lacroix and seconded by R. Nishikawa P153/2015 THAT all recommendations contained

in the minutes of the Community Services Committee meeting No. CS-9-2015 held on August 26, 2015 BE ADOPTED.

Carried. c) Planning & Economic Development – PED-10-2015 – August 12, 2015 These public meeting minutes were provided for information. d) Corporate & Emergency Services – CES-10-2015 – August 27, 2015 i) Review of Minutes for Correctness No errors or omissions. ii) Committee Report Councillor Aitchison highlighted the minutes of the August 27, 2015 meeting of

the Corporate & Emergency Services Committee. Moved by S. Aitchison and seconded by G. Smith P154/2015

THAT all recommendations contained in the minutes of the Corporate & Emergency Services Committee meeting No. CES-10-2015 held on August 27, 2015 BE ADOPTED.

Carried.

CORRESPONDENCE/WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS – All correspondence listed is a matter of public record. Should any member of Council or the public wish to receive full copies, please contact the Clerk’s department. 1. THE TOWNSHIP OF LAKE OF BAYS provided a copy of Resolution No. #8(a)/08/18/15,

which was passed at its August 18, 2015 Council meeting, regarding the importance of multi-site acute care services in Huntsville and Bracebridge, and should the Muskoka Algonquin Health Care Board decide on a single site, Huntsville would be the preferred location. (Received August 10, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO, Finance, Planning, Public Works, Community Services, and Land Ambulance departments)

2. THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 2015 PAN AND PARAPAN AMERICAN GAMES, on behalf of the Government of Ontario, expressed sincere thanks for indispensable contributions to the success of the Toronto 2015 Pan American and Parapan American Games. (Received September 2, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair)

3. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON provided a copy of its September 1, 2015 Council Resolution, regarding the privatization of Hydro One. (Received September 4, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO, Finance, Public Works, Planning, and Legal departments)

4. THE PREMIER OF ONTARIO acknowledged receipt of the Muskoka District Council resolution regarding Hydro One ownership. (Received September 8, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO, Finance, Public Works, Planning and Legal departments)

5. TIM MCDONALD provided a copy of a letter addressed to Swift River Energy Ltd. and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry regarding the Bala Power Plant as a follow-up to his meeting with Premier Wynne. (Received September 10, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO, Public Works and Legal departments)

6. THE TOWNSHIP OF LAKE OF BAYS provided a copy of Resolution No. #9(g)/09/15/15

regarding equal representation for the Townships of Lake of Bays and Georgian Bay at the District Council table. (Received September 15, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO, and Legal department)

7. THE TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY provided a copy of Resolution No. C-259-2015

regarding equal representation for the Townships of Georgian Bay and Lake of Bays at the District Council table. (Received September 16, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO, and Legal department)

MOTIONS a) Change to Composition of Muskoka District Council Deputy Chair Giaschi-Pacini introduced the following motion as proposed by Councillors

Young and Braid: “Moved by B. Young and seconded by L. Braid 155/2015

THAT WHEREAS the District of Muskoka has six lower-tier municipalities comprising the three Towns of Huntsville, Bracebridge and Gravenhurst and three Townships comprising Muskoka Lakes, Lake of Bays and Georgian Bay; AND WHEREAS the representation at District Council is unequal amongst the six municipalities with Huntsville, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Muskoka Lakes having four representatives each; and Lake of Bays and Georgian Bay having only three representatives each;

AND WHEREAS the Townships of Lake of Bays and Georgian Bay have been contributing physically and financially on par with the other municipalities; AND WHEREAS the Councils of the Townships of Lake of Bays and Georgian Bay have directed their District Councillors to initiate the process at the District of Muskoka to modify the composition of District Council to affect equal representation for all municipalities; AND WHEREAS it is recognized that a beneficial first step in this process is to determine the optimum number of Councillors required to efficiently and effectively conduct the business of the District of Muskoka; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka directs staff to investigate the process, considerations and consequences of initiating a change to the composition of Muskoka District Council; AND THAT a staff report be prepared and forwarded to Muskoka District Council for its consideration identifying such findings that would include, but not be limited to, best-practices and benchmarking with other municipalities; impact on associated operating and capital budgets; and the process to be followed to initiate the change, if any.”

Councillor Young highlighted his digital presentation suggesting a review of the composition of District Council due to an inequity of representation by both the Townships of Lake of Bays and Georgian Bay. While he agreed that this would require a great deal of work to bring forward the required background information for Council’s consideration, he felt that it was important to initiate this well in advance of the next municipal election. To view Councillor Young’s background information, please click on the following link: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=26743 To view Councillor Young’s presentation, please click on the following link: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=26769 Councillors discussed the pros and cons of Councillor D. Smith’s suggestion that the item be referred to a future Committee of the Whole Council meeting to allow for additional discussion and to expand the subject to include other governance matters. Deputy Chair Giaschi-Pacini then introduced the following referral motion and it was defeated:

https://muskoka.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=26743


Moved by D. Smith and seconded by P. Kelly 156/2015

THAT Motion No. 155/2015 be referred to a future Committee of the Whole Council meeting to enable a full discussion on the composition of Muskoka District Council and other governance matters. Defeated

In response to a question regarding the possibility of hiring a consultant once the background information is produced, Mr. Duben advised that it would ultimately be a Council decision on how it wished to proceed with the review; either by a consultant; an ad hoc Committee; or a Committee of the Whole Council. The vote was then taken on the main motion as follows:

Moved by B. Young and seconded by L. Braid 155/2015

THAT WHEREAS the District of Muskoka has six lower-tier municipalities comprising the three Towns of Huntsville, Bracebridge and Gravenhurst and three Townships comprising Muskoka Lakes, Lake of Bays and Georgian Bay; AND WHEREAS the representation at District Council is unequal amongst the six municipalities with Huntsville, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Muskoka Lakes having four representatives each; and Lake of Bays and Georgian Bay having only three representatives each; AND WHEREAS the Townships of Lake of Bays and Georgian Bay have been contributing physically and financially on par with the other municipalities; AND WHEREAS the Councils of the Townships of Lake of Bays and Georgian Bay have directed their District Councillors to initiate the process at the District of Muskoka to modify the composition of District Council to affect equal representation for all municipalities; AND WHEREAS it is recognized that a beneficial first step in this process is to determine the optimum number of Councillors required to efficiently and effectively conduct the business of the District of Muskoka; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka

directs staff to investigate the process, considerations and consequences of initiating a change to the composition of Muskoka District Council; AND THAT a staff report be prepared and forwarded to Muskoka District Council for its consideration identifying such findings that would include, but not be limited to, best-practices and benchmarking with other municipalities; impact on associated operating and capital budgets; and the process to be followed to initiate the change, if any. Carried.

NEW BUSINESS a) Contract Awards – Engineering and Public Works It was noted that the following contracts were awarded by the Engineering and Public

Works Committee at its meeting prior to the District Council meeting in accordance with sections 6.4(iii) and 6.24 of Schedule A to Procurement By-law 2004-74, as amended:

i) Contract No. 15-313-156 – Jevins Creek Bridge Replacement – Town of

Gravenhurst ii) Contract No. 15-313-158 – Muskoka Road 10 Bridge Rehabilitation - Town of

Huntsville

b) Updates to By-laws (Off-Road Vehicle Use on Muskoka Roads) Report No. 13(2015)-1 Moved by L. Braid and seconded by P. Wiancko 157/2015

THAT by-laws BE PREPARED to provide updates on recent revisions to definitions contained within the Highway Traffic Act and Ontario Regulation 135/15. Carried.

c) Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare (MAHC) Hospital Proposal – Municipal and Community

Considerations Report No. 13(2015)-2 Consideration of this item was deferred from the July Council meeting until such time as

a staff report could be prepared. Given that that this motion did not previously appear on the Council agenda, a 2/3 vote was required in order to be considered. When the 2/3 affirmative vote was achieved, the following motion was introduced:

Moved by G. Smith and seconded by S. Aitchison 158/2015

THAT Muskoka District Council ENDORSES attached Resolutions of the Town of Bracebridge (adopted June 24, 2015); and the Town of Huntsville (adopted June 22, 2015); petitioning the Province of Ontario to ensure that a full range of core hospital services, including acute care inpatient, emergency, diagnostic and surgical services, are maintained on a multi-site basis at both the South Muskoka Memorial Hospital in Bracebridge and the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital; AND THAT a copy of this resolution and the related staff Report No. 13(2015)-2 (attached) be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario and appropriate provincial ministries including the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare; the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the AMO Small Urban Caucus, the AMO Rural Caucus, MPP Norm Miller, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party of Ontario, the New Democratic Party of Ontario, The Green Party of Ontario and all municipalities within the entire Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare catchment area including Almaguin Highlands. Carried.

BY-LAWS/IMPLEMENTATION BY-LAWS Moved by B. Thompson and seconded by G. Smith P159/2015

THAT by-laws for first and second reading be numbered and entitled:

2015-45 Being a by-law to amend By-law 82-28

(authorizing speed limits on Muskoka Roads) to establish a speed limit of 60 km per hour on a portion of Muskoka Road No. 4 (Windermere Road – Township of Muskoka Lakes)

2015-46 Being a by-law to provide for permission for

limited use of Off-Road Vehicles (ORV) on certain Muskoka Roads on a conditional basis (Town of Bracebridge)

2015-47 Being a by-law to provide for permission for limited use of Off-Road Vehicles (ORV) on certain Muskoka Roads on a conditional basis (Town of Gravenhurst)

2015-48 Being a by-law to provide for permission for

limited use of Off-Road Vehicles (ORV) on certain Muskoka Roads on a conditional basis (Township of Georgian Bay)

AND THAT the by-laws be read a first and second time. Carried. Moved by P. Wiancko and seconded by B. Young P160/2015 THAT by-laws read a first and second time and

numbered 2015-45, 2015-46, 2015-47 and 2015-48 be read a third time and finally passed.

Carried. CONFIRMING BY-LAW Moved by G. Smith and seconded by S. Aitchison P161/2015 THAT By-law 2015-49 being a By-law to confirm the

proceedings of the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka at this meeting held on the 21st day of September, 2015 be amended by the addition of resolutions 152/2015, 155/2015, 157/2015, 158/2015;

AND THAT the by-law, as amended, be read and passed. Carried. NEW BUSINESS a) Location of Phragmites in Muskoka

Councillor Wiancko challenged all Councillors to identify areas within all Muskoka municipalities where phragmites are present on District and area municipal roads. He suggested that a GPS app could be downloaded to phones in order to assist with the process and asked that a picture of the site also be taken. He advised that if the locations were identified this Fall, the process to control the invasive species could commence next year.

ADJOURNMENT Moved by S. Cairns and seconded by D. Furniss P162/2015 THAT we do now adjourn to meet again on Monday,

October 19, 2015 or at the call of the Chair. Carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. ____________________________ ____________________________ District Chair District Clerk


ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

MEETING NO. PW-12-2015

MINUTES PLACE: Birch Room, District Administration Building TIME: 6:00 p.m. DATE: September 21, 2015 PRESENT: Committee Chair P. Harding; Members S. Baker, L. Braid, T. Pilger, D. Smith, B. Thompson ABSENT: District Chair J. Klinck OFFICIALS PRESENT: M. Duben, Chief Administrative Officer; F. Jahn, Commissioner of

Engineering and Public Works; J. Stevens, Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services

ALSO PRESENT: Deputy District Chair L. Giaschi-Pacini; Councillor S. Aitchison;

M. Firman, Director of Water and Wastewater Operations; M. Misko, Manager of Roads Maintenance and Construction; D. Hammond, Director, Continuous Improvement Unit; B. Melvin, Administrative Assistant; A. Back, Deputy Clerk

CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Harding called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS None were declared. BUDGETS AND FINANCIAL PLANNING a) Engineering and Public Works Department Tax Supported Operating Budget Variance

Report – June 30, 2015 PW-12-2015-1

Moved by B. Thompson and seconded by S. Baker R105/2015-PW

THAT the Engineering and Public Works Department Tax Supported Operating Budget Variance Report as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED.

Carried.

b) Engineering and Public Works Department Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report – June 30, 2015 PW-12-2015-2

Moved by S. Baker and seconded by B. Thompson R106/2015-PW

THAT the Engineering and Public Works Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED.

Carried. c) Budget Amendment for Municipal Sanitary Sewer Local Improvements on

Westvale Drive and McCrank Drive in the Town of Bracebridge PW-12-2015-3

Moved by S. Baker and seconded by B. Thompson R107/2015-PW

THAT the 2015 Rate Supported Capital Budget and Forecast be amended as outlined in the following table:

Project Current Budget

Proposed Amendment Proposed Budget

411153 BB Golf Course/ McCrank & Westvale LI 0 25,000 25,000 411086 BB Taylor from Toronto to Front 500,000 (25,000) 475,000 500,000 0 500,000 Funding Sources Wastewater Capital Reserve 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 500,000

Carried.

AWARD OF CONTRACTS a) Award of Contract No. 15-313-156 – Jevins Creek Bridge Replacement

Town of Gravenhurst PW-12-2015-4 Recommendation (Delegated Decision)

Moved by B. Thompson and seconded by S. Baker D108/2015-PW

THAT Contract No. 15-313-156 for the replacement of Jevins Creek Bridge in the Town of Gravenhurst BE AWARDED to the low bidder, National Structures Incorporated, in the amount of $912,112.97 which is included in the 2015 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast.

Carried.

b) Award of Contract No. 15-313-1158 – Muskoka Road 10 Bridge Rehabilitation – Town of Huntsville PW-12-2015-5 Recommendation (Delegated Decision)

Moved by B. Thompson and seconded by S. Baker D109/2015-PW

THAT Contract No. 15-313-158 for the rehabilitation of the Muskoka Road 10 Bridge in the Town of Huntsville BE AWARDED to the low bidder, MTM-2 Contracting Incorporated, in the amount of $136,380.00 which is included in the 2015 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast.

Carried.

TRANSPORTATION a) Closure of Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road) and

Muskoka Road 13 (Southwood Road) PW-12-2015-6 A discussion occurred regarding signage for the two road closures and when residents would be notified of detour routes. Prior to the motion being read, and with the concurrence of the mover and seconder, the motion was amended to delay the Muskoka Road 10 road closure until after the Thanksgiving weekend.

Moved by S. Baker and seconded by B. Thompson 110/2015-PW

THAT permission BE GRANTED to close Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road) at the Muskoka Road 10 Bridge (Structure 010042) between 12:00 a.m. on October 13, 2015 and 5:00 p.m. on November 23, 2015 to accommodate the rehabilitation of this structure; AND THAT permission BE GRANTED to close Muskoka Road 13 (Southwood Road) at Jevins Creek Bridge (Structure 013099) between 12:00 a.m. on October 5, 2015 and 5:00 p.m. on December 18, 2015 to accommodate the replacement of this structure.

Carried. This motion was subsequently adopted by Muskoka District Council on September 21, 2015.

INFORMATION ITEMS a) Renewable Energy Projects and District of Muskoka Lands

PW-12-2015-7 Mr. Hammond highlighted his report and explained the rationale for partnering with private sector companies, as a landlord, to submit applications to the IESO. He added that District interests would be protected through the inclusion of appropriate provisions contained within the leases.

Councillor Aitchison left the meeting at 6:33 p.m. NEW BUSINESS a) 2016 Budget Process

Ms. Stevens advised that at a recent Muskoka Treasurers’ meeting, they discussed the merits of not providing budget estimates by project when producing the budget documents as it was felt that this may enable a more competitive process and possibly save taxpayer dollars. She suggested that this could be done on a pilot basis for roads projects. The Committee agreed to trial the concept for the 2016 budget.

ADJOURNMENT

Moved by S. Baker and seconded by B. Thompson P111/2015-PW

THAT the Engineering and Public Works Committee adjourns to meet again on Wednesday, October 21, 2015, or at the call of the Chair.

Carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m. ________________________________ Deputy Clerk

TO: Chair and Members

Engineering and Public Works Committee FROM: Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Engineering and Public Works Department Tax Supported Operating

Budget Variance Report – June 30, 2015 REPORT NO: PW-12-2015-1 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the Engineering and Public Works Department Tax Supported Operating Budget Variance Report as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED. ORIGIN Policy AD:52 Operating Budget Administration requires the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services to provide the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee, the other Standing Committees and Council with a written status report on the yearly budgets on a quarterly basis. This report highlights significant budget variances for the Tax Supported Operating Budget. ANALYSIS Attached to this report are schedules that outline the significant budget variances for the period ending June 30, 2015. The schedules provide an overall department view as well as a breakdown for the department by major object and by program net levy along with a brief narrative description of the variances. The Tax Supported Operating Variance Report by Object shows the year-to-date (YTD)

actuals ending June 30, 2014 and the annual budget for 2014, YTD actuals ending June 30, 2015 and the annual budget for 2015. The next two columns compare the YTD actuals to the annual budget in terms of dollars remaining in the budget and the percentage of budget spent. The final two columns indicate projected annual variance and comments.

The second summary, using the same format as the first summary, shows the bottom line net levy for each program/division within the department.

Page 1

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Similar to the first quarterly variance report, the Transportation budget is projecting an unfavourable year-end variance of $573,000 due mainly to Winter Control costs. All of the remaining divisions are expected to end the year slightly under budget when combined, as noted below. The projected Winter Control variance of $605,000 is based on the assumption that the winter conditions and costs for the period from July through December of 2015 will be similar to the average spend for these months over the last four years. The actual winter conditions and costs in November and December of 2015 may differ from this average which will impact the projection. Staff have reviewed the Transportation budget to determine where costs can be deferred or curtailed in order to reduce this unfavourable variance. Staff is projecting savings in Paved Roads of $76,000. However, additional work in Maintenance and Drainage costing $44,000 has reduced the projected net savings to $32,000. Given the magnitude of the projected deficit, it is likely that a portion of this variance will need to be funded from reserves. Staff will make a recommendation in the third quarter variance report. COMMUNICATIONS Operating Budget Variance Reports are submitted to the Standing Committees and Council on a quarterly basis for results as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st of each year. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The report on the Tax Supported Operating Budget variance supports the following goal as outlined in the District’s Strategic Priorities: 2. Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountability through

the budget process, public reporting of budget results, the corporate credit rating and debt reduction.

Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B Commissioner of Finance and Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services

Page 2

TS Variance by Object Committee-PW

Public Works Administration Run Date: 9/15/15 10:06 AM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual

YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/

(Unfavourable)Comments

ExpendituresOperating Costs

Personnel 866,516 2,818,500 52,847 (106,220) (159,067) (49.8%) Employee Related Expenses 38,086 64,100 30,476 68,500 38,024 44.5% Timing variance for Conferences to be incurred in last half of

the year.Materials & Supplies 17,540 32,000 10,098 32,000 21,902 31.6% Timing variance due to cost of Supplies not yet incurred.Purchased Services 25,202 41,900 21,724 29,700 7,976 73.1% The high cost of Advertising for Personnel vacancies will be

recovered through Engineering Administration charge out.

Total Operating Costs 947,344 2,956,500 115,145 23,980 (91,165) 480.2%Finance Charges/Reserves

Finance Charges 288 1,200 215 1,200 985 17.9% Timing variance due to Bank Fees, which correspond to seasonal revenues.

Reserves 640 1,280 640 1,280 640 50.0% On budget.Total Finance Charges/Reserves 928 2,480 855 2,480 1,625 34.5%

Net Internal Service ChargesFleet 17,656 57,000 12,215 42,400 30,185 28.8% Timing variance due to seasonality of projects.Support Services (963,753) (2,998,980) (25,730) (58,860) (33,130) 43.7% Timing variance due to seasonality of projects.Total Net Internal Service Charges (946,097) (2,941,980) (13,515) (16,460) (2,945) 82.1%

Total Expenditures 2,175 17,000 102,485 10,000 (92,485) 1,024.9%Revenues

User Fees (119) (2) 2 Application Fees/Permits (1,991) (17,000) (628) (10,000) (9,372) 6.3% Timing variance due to seasonality.

Total Revenues (2,110) (17,000) (630) (10,000) (9,370) 6.3%Total Net Levy 65 0 101,855 0 (101,855)

Tax Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Page 3


Transportation Run Date: 9/15/15 10:06 AM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Personnel 483,047 1,085,661 702,094 1,513,660 811,566 46.4% Slightly below budget due to seasonal road contracts.Employee Related Expenses 16,001 31,000 15,532 31,000 15,468 50.1% On budget.Materials & Supplies 404,535 875,064 659,580 873,657 214,077 75.5% Timing variance due primarily to Operating Supplies for salt

under Winter Control.Purchased Services 3,962,693 5,497,329 3,252,735 5,763,533 2,510,798 56.4% (573,000) Timing variance due to seasonality of operations.

Winter Control costs have decreased from 2014 levels and are comparable to 2013 levels. However, based on the 4-year average spend, there is a projected unfavourable variance in Winter Control of $605,000. Future winter control variances are dependent on weather conditions in the last quarter of the year. Projected unfavourable variance of $44,000 for additional work required in Maintenance & Drainage, offset by savings under Paved Roads of $76,000

Minor Capital 53,000 Total Operating Costs 4,866,276 7,542,054 4,629,941 8,181,850 3,551,909 56.6% (573,000)

Finance Charges/ReservesFinance Charges (45) 45 Reserves 7,375,000 14,750,000 7,700,000 15,400,000 7,700,000 50.0% On budget.Total Finance Charges/Reserves 7,375,000 14,750,000 7,699,955 15,400,000 7,700,045 50.0%

Net Internal Service ChargesFleet 90,366 218,143 107,621 241,970 134,349 44.5% Timing variance due to seasonality of projects.Insurance 73,700 147,400 83,700 167,400 83,700 50.0% On budget.Support Services 439,065 887,370 188,254 375,180 186,926 50.2% On budget.Total Net Internal Service Charges 603,131 1,252,913 379,575 784,550 404,975 48.4%

Total Expenditures 12,844,407 23,544,967 12,709,471 24,366,400 11,656,929 52.2% (573,000)Revenues

User Fees (183) (33,800) (1,893) (33,800) (31,907) 5.6% Timing variance as aggregate resources fees are recorded in the latter part of the year.


Page 4


Transportation Run Date: 9/15/15 10:06 AM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Application Fees/Permits (64,902) (69,000) (64,331) (71,600) (7,269) 89.8% Timing Variance for Overload, Entrance and Sign Permits.

Total Revenues (65,085) (102,800) (66,224) (105,400) (39,176) 62.8%Total Net Levy 12,779,322 23,442,167 12,643,247 24,261,000 11,617,753 52.1% (573,000)

Page 5


Port Carling Locks Run Date: 9/15/15 10:06 AM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Personnel 38 114 (114) Employee Related Expenses 50 350 321 350 29 91.7% Timing variance for Memberships and the majority of

Protective Clothing budget spent to date.Materials & Supplies 10,292 22,054 7,629 22,054 14,425 34.6% Timing variance due to seasonality of Utilities and Operating

Supplies.Purchased Services 24,016 156,300 69,393 160,300 90,907 43.3% Timing variance due to seasonality of Area Services and

Building Maintenance costs.Total Operating Costs 34,396 178,704 77,457 182,704 105,247 42.4%

Finance Charges/ReservesFinance Charges 942 2,150 867 2,150 1,283 40.3% Timing variance due to Bank Fees, which correspond to

seasonal revenue.Reserves 125,000 250,000 125,000 250,000 125,000 50.0% On budget.Total Finance Charges/Reserves 125,942 252,150 125,867 252,150 126,283 49.9%

Net Internal Service ChargesFleet 4 24 (24) Insurance 7,100 14,200 8,250 16,500 8,250 50.0% On budget.Support Services 11,400 22,800 11,870 23,420 11,550 50.7% On budget.Total Net Internal Service Charges 18,504 37,000 20,144 39,920 19,776 50.5%

Total Expenditures 178,842 467,854 223,468 474,774 251,306 47.1%Revenues

User Fees (22,461) (75,000) (24,943) (75,000) (50,057) 33.3% Timing variance due to seasonal operations with the majority of lock fees to be received in the third quarter.

Total Revenues (22,461) (75,000) (24,943) (75,000) (50,057) 33.3%Total Net Levy 156,381 392,854 198,525 399,774 201,249 49.7%


Page 6

TS Variance by Object Committee - PW

Environment General Run Date: 9/15/15 10:06 AM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Personnel 220,435 448,981 294,657 609,000 314,343 48.4% Slightly under budget due to the cost of a summer student to be incurred in the third quarter.

Employee Related Expenses 2,221 7,525 3,410 16,775 13,365 20.3% Timing variance due to Courses and Safety Equipment expenses not yet incurred.

Materials & Supplies 23,564 111,085 11,678 106,400 94,722 11.0% Timing variance due to seasonal nature of operations.Purchased Services 65,922 374,700 149,317 343,500 194,183 43.5% High Contractor costs to date are offset by unspent

Consultant and Lab Tests budgets.Total Operating Costs 312,142 942,291 459,062 1,075,675 616,613 42.7%

Finance Charges/ReservesFinance Charges 1 Reserves 1,250,000 2,500,000 1,250,000 2,500,000 1,250,000 50.0% On budget.Total Finance Charges/Reserves 1,250,001 2,500,000 1,250,000 2,500,000 1,250,000 50.0%

Net Internal Service ChargesFleet 45,398 114,590 48,247 106,010 57,763 45.5% Timing variance due to seasonal nature of operations.Insurance 1,450 2,900 1,700 3,400 1,700 50.0% On budget.Support Services 70,620 144,190 65,397 135,260 69,863 48.3% On budget for year-end.Total Net Internal Service Charges 117,468 261,680 115,344 244,670 129,326 47.1%

Total Expenditures 1,679,611 3,703,971 1,824,406 3,820,345 1,995,939 47.8%Revenues

User Fees (161,924) (575,000) (213,060) (645,000) (431,940) 33.0% Timing variance due to seasonal nature of operations.Total Revenues (161,924) (575,000) (213,060) (645,000) (431,940) 33.0%

Total Net Levy 1,517,687 3,128,971 1,611,346 3,175,345 1,563,999 50.7%


Page 7

TS Variance Net Levy Summary-PW

Run Date: 9/15/15 9:31 AM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual



Public Works AdministrationEngineering Support (1) 0 662 0 (662) Timing variance.Design/Drafting/Survey 26 0 101,193 0 (101,193) Timing variance due to Drafting Services not recovered.Special Development 40 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 65 0 101,855 0 (101,855) 0

Transportation - RoadsTraffic 559,788 1,335,000 574,184 1,223,800 649,616 46.9% On budget.Roads - Paved 729,825 1,131,752 556,570 1,209,552 652,982 46.0% 76,000 Timing variance due to seasonality of operations. A

favourable variance is projected under purchased services.

Structures - Bridges & Culverts 144,442 502,566 136,079 500,366 364,287 27.2% Timing variance.Maintenance & Drainage 314,460 697,300 246,874 718,800 471,926 34.3% (44,000) Timing variance due to seasonality of operations. Projected

variance for additional work required.Stormwater Management 68,110 450,200 76,678 407,000 330,322 18.8% Timing variance.Winter Control 3,089,295 3,549,648 2,897,686 3,789,102 891,416 76.5% (605,000) Timing variance due to seasonality of operations. Winter

Control costs have decreased from 2014 levels and are comparable to 2013 levels. However, based on the 4-year average spend, there is a projected unfavourable variance in Winter Control of $605,000. Future variances are dependent on weather conditions in the last quarter of the year.

Roads Administration 7,873,402 15,775,701 8,155,176 16,412,380 8,257,204 49.7% On budget.

Subtotal 12,779,322 23,442,167 12,643,247 24,261,000 11,617,753 52.1% (573,000)

Port Carling LocksPort Carling Locks 156,381 392,854 198,525 399,774 201,249 49.7% On budget with corresponding low revenue and expenditures

due to seasonality.

Tax Supported Operating Variance Net Levy Summary

Page 8

TS Variance Net Levy Summary-PW

2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual



Subtotal 156,381 392,854 198,525 399,774 201,249 49.7% 0

Environment GeneralEnvironment Financing 1,250,000 2,500,000 1,250,000 2,500,000 1,250,000 50.0% On budget.Hauled Sewage Operations 258,818 628,971 359,911 675,345 315,434 53.3% Timing variance particularly for seasonal revenues.Bird's Mill 8,869 0 1,435 0 (1,435) Bird's Mill charges were not budgeted as the transfer to the

Town of Bracebridge had been expected to be completed prior to this year.

Subtotal 1,517,687 3,128,971 1,611,346 3,175,345 1,563,999 50.7% 0

Total 14,453,455 26,963,992 14,554,973 27,836,119 13,281,146 52.3% (573,000)

Page 9


Engineering and Public Works Committee FROM: Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Engineering and Public Works Department Rate Supported Operating

Budget Variance Report – June 30, 2015 REPORT NO: PW-12-2015-2 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the Engineering and Public Works Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED. ORIGIN Policy AD:52 Operating Budget Administration requires the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services to provide Corporate and Emergency Services Committee, the other Standing Committees and Council with a written status report on the yearly budgets on a quarterly basis. This report highlights significant budget variances for the Rate Supported Operating Budget. ANALYSIS Attached to this report are schedules that outline the significant budget variances for the period ending June 30, 2015. The schedules provide a summary of the water, wastewater and solid waste management services by major object and by program net levy along with a brief description of the variances. The Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object shows the year-to-date (YTD)


Page 1

The second summary, using the same format as the first summary, shows the bottom line net levy for each program/division within the department (Solid Waste only).

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Water and Wastewater Rate Supported Operating Budgets Overall, the Water and Wastewater Rate Supported Operating Budgets are expected to have a shortfall of $245,000. The consumption volume is consistent with 2014 for the first six months of 2015, but lower than the budget. As a result, a revenue shortfall of $245,000 is projected. Staff will review the Water and Wastewater operating budgets to assess whether any costs can be deferred or curtailed in order to mitigate this unfavourable variance and provide an update in the September quarterly variance report. Expenditures are all within budget. Any variance is due to the timing of expenses and is not expected to result in any significant year-end surplus or deficit. Solid Waste Management Rate Supported Operating Budget Similar to Water and Wastewater operations, expenditures and revenues within the Solid Waste Management Rate Supported Operating Budget are influenced significantly by the seasonal nature of the operations with the majority of the variances identified to-date due to timing. Personnel expenditures are projected to be under budget by $33,000 due to staff time being allocated to capital projects in 2015. Revenues are also impacted by seasonal operations. Tipping fee revenues are slightly lower than the same period last year, and are expected to result in a shortfall of $100,000 by year-end. However, this unfavourable variance is offset by the following favourable revenue variances. First, the recycle rebate is expected to exceed budget by $30,000 by year-end due to improving market rates. Second, the Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) grant has been confirmed and is $97,758 above budget for 2015. The sum of these figures is a net favourable variance for revenue of $27,758. A net year-end surplus of $60,758 is expected at this time for Solid Waste. COMMUNICATIONS Operating Budget Variance Reports are submitted to the Standing Committees and Council on a quarterly basis for results as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st of each year. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The status report on the Rate Supported Operating Budget supports the following goal as outlined in the District’s Strategic Priorities:

Page 2

2. Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountability through the budget process, public reporting of budget results, the corporate credit rating and debt reduction.


Page 3

RS Variance by Object (ver mth)

Water and Wastewater Levy Run Date: 9/04/15 3:27 PM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Personnel 1,961,107 3,798,245 2,479,554 4,911,300 2,431,746 50.5% On budget.Employee Related Expenses 54,178 102,000 54,666 119,000 64,334 45.9% Timing Variance due to course expenditures not yet

incurred.Materials & Supplies 1,866,094 4,070,770 2,099,232 4,090,935 1,991,703 51.3% Timing Variance due to initial outlay for water meters,

seasonal utilities costs, and interim property taxes, and these are offset in part by equipment repair parts and operating supplies costs not yet incurred.

Purchased Services 787,292 1,656,690 837,687 1,736,425 898,738 48.2% Timing Variance primarily for subcontractor and biosolids disposal costs not yet incurred, which are offset in part by flushing/video work that is completed for the year.

Total Operating Costs 4,668,671 9,627,705 5,471,139 10,857,660 5,386,521 50.4%Finance Charges/Reserves

Finance Charges 3,476,449 8,264,087 3,403,251 8,465,603 5,062,352 40.2% Timing Variance due to principal and interest payments which vary throughout the year.

Reserves 2,450,000 4,900,000 2,527,000 5,054,000 2,527,000 50.0% On budget.Total Finance Charges/Reserves 5,926,449 13,164,087 5,930,251 13,519,603 7,589,352 43.9%

Net Internal Service ChargesFleet 249,986 474,490 226,126 448,850 222,724 50.4% On budget.Insurance 155,200 310,400 176,850 353,700 176,850 50.0% On budget.Support Services 979,731 2,086,840 461,352 920,710 459,358 50.1% On budget.Total Net Internal Service Charges 1,384,917 2,871,730 864,328 1,723,260 858,932 50.2%


Revenue SourcesUser Fees (6,611,794) (14,563,736) (6,634,182) (14,599,372) (7,965,190) 45.4% (245,000) Projected Annual Variance is due to volume billing that is

projected to be below target at year-end. Timing Variance is due to seasonality of consumption which peaks during summer months.

Application Fees/Permits (30,460) (55,000) (30,415) (55,000) (24,585) 55.3%

Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Page 4






Local Improvement Charges (494,730) (476,590) (476,590) Timing Variance due to Local Improvement levies which are billed in August.

Supplementary Taxes (48,610) (119,300) (119,300) Timing Variance due to supplementary taxes which are billed in December.

Total Revenue Sources (6,642,254) (15,162,076) (6,664,597) (15,250,262) (8,585,665) 43.7% (245,000)Total Revenues (6,642,254) (15,162,076) (6,664,597) (15,250,262) (8,585,665) 43.7% (245,000)

Total Water and Wastewater Levy 5,337,783 10,501,446 5,601,121 10,850,261 5,249,140 51.6% (245,000)

Page 5


Water Levy Run Date: 9/04/15 3:27 PM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Personnel 1,125,125 1,956,269 1,308,035 2,631,900 1,323,865 49.7% On budget.Employee Related Expenses 28,017 60,250 34,397 70,250 35,853 49.0% On budget.Materials & Supplies 879,115 1,849,470 993,884 1,833,350 839,466 54.2% Timing Variance due to initial outlay for water meters and

interim property taxes.Purchased Services 218,386 607,160 264,159 548,425 284,266 48.2% On budget.Total Operating Costs 2,250,643 4,473,149 2,600,475 5,083,925 2,483,450 51.2%

Finance Charges/ReservesFinance Charges 1,347,481 2,964,723 1,322,470 2,916,151 1,593,681 45.3% Timing Variance due to principal and interest payments

which vary throughout the year.Reserves 1,300,000 2,600,000 1,361,500 2,723,000 1,361,500 50.0% On budget.Total Finance Charges/Reserves 2,647,481 5,564,723 2,683,970 5,639,151 2,955,181 47.6%

Net Internal Service ChargesFleet 155,307 250,250 121,771 242,630 120,859 50.2% On budget.Insurance 68,600 137,200 78,250 156,500 78,250 50.0% On budget.Support Services 502,797 1,043,950 245,947 492,530 246,583 49.9% On budget.Total Net Internal Service Charges 726,704 1,431,400 445,968 891,660 445,692 50.0%



projected to be below target at year-end. Timing variance is due to seasonality of consumption which peaks during summer months.

Application Fees/Permits (10,310) (50,000) (30,365) (50,000) (19,635) 60.7% Timing Variance for connection fees. Local Improvement Charges (100,820) (83,950) (83,950) Timing Variance due to Local Improvement levies which are

billed in August.Supplementary Taxes (19,000) (34,600) (34,600) Timing Variance due to supplementary taxes which are

billed in December.Total Revenue Sources (3,648,056) (8,099,990) (3,689,434) (8,169,467) (4,480,033) 45.2% (170,000)


Page 6






Total Revenues (3,648,056) (8,099,990) (3,689,434) (8,169,467) (4,480,033) 45.2% (170,000)Total Water Levy 1,976,772 3,369,282 2,040,979 3,445,269 1,404,290 59.2% (170,000)

Page 7


Wastewater Levy Run Date: 9/04/15 3:27 PM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Personnel 835,982 1,841,976 1,171,519 2,279,400 1,107,881 51.4% On budget.Employee Related Expenses 26,161 41,750 20,269 48,750 28,481 41.6% Timing Variance due to course expenditures not yet

incurred.Materials & Supplies 986,979 2,221,300 1,105,348 2,257,585 1,152,237 49.0% Timing Variance due to equipment repair parts, operating

supplies and bulk chemical costs yet to be incurred, offset in part by seasonal utility costs.

Purchased Services 568,906 1,049,530 573,528 1,188,000 614,472 48.3% Timing Variance due to completion of flushing/video work, and is offset by subcontractor, lab test and biosolids disposal costs not yet incurred.








Application Fees/Permits (20,150) (5,000) (50) (5,000) (4,950) 1.0% Timing Variance due to connection fees; offset by favourable variance under Water connection fees.


Page 8









Total Wastewater Levy 3,361,011 7,132,164 3,560,142 7,404,992 3,844,850 48.1% (75,000)

Page 9


Solid Waste Levy Run Date : 9/04/15 3:38 PM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Personnel 531,071 1,164,766 659,040 1,513,700 854,660 43.5% 33,000 Favourable variance forecast due to labour charged to capital projects as well as vacancy gapping.

Employee Related Expenses 11,571 18,650 9,538 19,850 10,312 48.1% On budget.Materials & Supplies 96,139 212,285 72,251 226,065 153,814 32.0% Timing Variance due to Operating Supplies expenditures not

yet incurred.Purchased Services 3,841,645 8,698,152 3,881,766 8,854,929 4,973,163 43.8% Timing Variance primarily due to Consultant and

Subcontractor costs not yet incurred. Transfer To Others 32,064 1,452,664 6,540 1,422,439 1,415,899 0.5% Timing Variance due to payment to area municipalities.Minor Capital 6,492 50,000 5,000 5,000 Timing Variance due to expenditures not yet incurred.Total Operating Costs 4,518,982 11,596,517 4,629,135 12,041,983 7,412,848 38.4% 33,000

Finance Charges/ReservesFinance Charges 31,021 223,690 7,111 243,940 236,829 2.9% Timing Variance due to Principal and Interest charges

recorded later in the year.Reserves 750,000 1,500,000 750,000 1,500,000 750,000 50.0% On budget.Total Finance Charges/Reserves 781,021 1,723,690 757,111 1,743,940 986,829 43.4%

Net Internal Service ChargesFleet 399,407 840,790 373,806 868,860 495,054 43.0% Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations.Insurance 5,350 10,700 6,250 12,500 6,250 50.0% On budget.Support Services 382,172 741,290 223,183 445,010 221,827 50.2% On budget.Total Net Internal Service Charges 786,929 1,592,780 603,239 1,326,370 723,131 45.5%

Total Expenditures 6,086,932 14,912,987 5,989,485 15,112,293 9,122,808 39.6% 33,000Revenues

Grants (443,536) (1,065,000) (549,649) (1,041,100) (491,451) 52.8% 97,758 Favourable variance for Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) funding.

User Fees (1,278,769) (2,940,499) (1,242,265) (2,845,707) (1,603,442) 43.7% (70,000) Landfill waste tipping fees revenues are slightly below the prior year and a shortfall is projected of $100,000. Recycling rebate has a projected surplus of $30,000 as a result of increases in market rates in recent months.


Page 10






Supplementary Taxes (131) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) Timing Variance due to Supplementary Taxes billed in December.

Total Revenues (1,722,436) (4,105,499) (1,791,914) (3,986,807) (2,194,893) 44.9% 27,758Total Solid Waste Levy 4,364,496 10,807,488 4,197,571 11,125,486 6,927,915 37.7% 60,758

Page 11

RS Variance by Program

Solid Waste Management 06 Fund Run Date : 9/04/15 3:38 PM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual



District General 1,228,005 3,879,106 1,176,849 3,960,742 2,783,893 29.7% Timing Variance due to payment to area municipalities.Depots 76,954 202,514 72,203 206,919 134,716 34.9% Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations.Diversion (49,540) 79,105 (125,657) 97,817 223,474 (128.5%) 127,758 Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations as well as

Subcontractor work, which occurs in the fall. Favourable variance for WDO funding of $97,758 and for Recycling rebate of $30,000.

Curbside 1,751,914 3,518,710 1,826,952 3,636,440 1,809,488 50.2% On budget.Landfill Sites (241,171) (634,639) (283,748) (575,939) (292,191) 49.3% (67,000) Timing variance, primarily due to Consultant costs for

Closed Landfills not yet incurred. Unfavourable variance forecast of $100,000 due to a decrease in landfill tipping fees offset by a $33,000 favourable variance in Personnel due to labour charged to capital projects and vacancy gapping.

Transfer Stations 930,159 2,107,187 877,311 2,071,792 1,194,481 42.3% Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations.Remote Bins 313,535 881,365 308,722 924,730 616,008 33.4% Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations.Kitchen Organics 354,640 774,140 345,939 802,985 457,046 43.1% Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations.Total Solid Waste Management 06 Fund 4,364,496 10,807,488 4,198,571 11,125,486 6,926,915 37.7% 60,758

Rate Supported Operating Variance Net Levy Summary

Page 12

TO: Chair and Members Engineering and Public Works Committee FROM: Marcus Firman, C.E.T. Director of Water and Wastewater Operations DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment for Municipal Sanitary Sewer Local Improvements on Westvale Drive and McCrank Drive in the Town of Bracebridge REPORT NO: PW-12-2015-3 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the 2015 Rate Supported Capital Budget and Forecast be amended as outlined in the following table:

Project

Current Budget

Proposed Amendment

Proposed Budget

411153 BB Golf Course/ McCrank & Westvale LI 0 25,000 25,000 411086 BB Taylor from Toronto to Front 500,000 (25,000) 475,000 500,000 0 500,000 Funding Sources Wastewater Capital Reserve 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 500,000

ORIGIN On February 18, 2015, staff presented Report No. PW-4-2015-1 to the Engineering and Public Works Committee, which discussed the coordination of municipal sanitary sewer local improvements with the Town of Bracebridge (the Town) capital road reconstruction program on Catherine Crescent, Curling Road, Daniel Drive, Golf Course Road, McCrank Drive and Westvale Drive, pursuant to District policy AD:22, Clause 4.11 ii). ANALYSIS This sanitary sewer local improvement project was not included in the 2015 Rate Supported Capital Budget and Forecast; however, preliminary design work for the extension of sanitary sewer service is required prior to moving forward with the Town’s road reconstruction project. In order for this preliminary design work to take place, funding will be required this year in order to move forward and not delay the Town from commencing their capital road reconstruction program on Westvale and McCrank Drives.

Page 1


FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS As previously mentioned, this project was not included in the 2015 Rate Supported Capital Budget and Forecast. The total cost for this project is estimated at $2.43M, and has been included in the 2016 Draft Capital and Budget Forecast submission. Additionally, confirmation of the total project cost is currently being sought by District staff from the Town of Bracebridge to ensure this estimated cost is acceptable. The following table outlines the current financial status of Project No. 411086, from which the funds are being transferred as there are sufficient funds allocated within the budget to complete the project.

LTD Commitments/Actuals

Forecast to

Complete Total Proposed

Budget

411153 BB Golf Course/ McCrank & Westvale LI Expenditures Construction Other Project Costs 25,000 25,000 411086 BB Taylor from Toronto to Front Expenditures Construction Other Project Costs 28,253 446,747 475,000

Total Expenditures 28,253 471,747 500,000 Sources of Funding Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund 500,000 500,000

Total Sources of Funding 0 500,000 500,000 COMMUNICATIONS Upon Committee and Council approval, notice will be sent to the Public Works Department at the Town of Bracebridge that District staff will be moving forward with the required preliminary design work. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on municipal sanitary sewer local improvements supports the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 4. Provide reliable and progressive public infrastructure systems to serve urban, rural and waterfront communities across Muskoka. Continue to provide water and sewage treatment systems and waste management programs of a high environmental standard while also recognizing the need for affordable rates and economically viable systems. Maintain a safe and reliable road and bridge system that supports the existing and future needs of Muskoka. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Original signed by Marcus Firman, C.E.T. Fred Jahn, P.Eng. Sharon Donald, CPA, CMA Director of Water and Commissioner of Engineering Director of Budgets Wastewater Operations and Public Works and Financial Planning

Page 2

TO: Chair and Members Engineering and Public Works Committee FROM: Mark Misko, C.E.T. Manager of Roads Maintenance & Construction DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Award of Contract No. 15-313-156 – Jevins Creek Bridge Replacement -

Town of Gravenhurst REPORT NO: PW-12-2015-4 RECOMMENDATION THAT Contract No. 15-313-156 for the replacement of Jevins Creek Bridge in the Town of Gravenhurst BE AWARDED to the low bidder, National Structures Incorporated, in the amount of $912,112.97 which is included in the 2015 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast. ORIGIN The District Municipality of Muskoka reviews the condition of all bridges and large culverts in its road network on a bi-annual basis to identify reconstruction/replacement needs. Jevins Creek Bridge, owing to its age, structural adequacy and substandard width has been identified for replacement. A location map has been included as Attachment A. ANALYSIS Six bids were received on September 3, 2015 in the amounts listed hereunder. An evaluation of the bids was conducted to review the experience of the contractors and sub-contractors and to identify any irregularities with the submissions. Contractor Location Bid 1. National Structures Inc. Belleville $912,112.97 2. MTM-2 Contracting Inc. Milton $1,037,470.00 3. Facca Incorporated Ruscom Station $1,067,870.00 4. R.M. Belanger Limited Chelmsford $1,178,903.00 5. Esposito Bros Construction Ltd Nobleton $1,296,655.18 6. Horseshoe Hill Construction Inc. Bolton $1,311,460.00

Page 1

This contract is scheduled to commence on October 5, 2015 with a targeted completion date of December 18, 2015. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The tender falls within the budget allocation for the project. This project is included in the 2015 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast as Project No. 313018 with a total amended budget of $1,100,000. The financing is 100% Roads Capital Reserve Fund.

Life to Date

Commitments/Actual Forecast to Complete

Total Amended Project Budget

Project # 313018 MR13 Replace Jevins Creek Bridge #013099 Expenditures Construction

912,113 912,113

Other Project Costs 39,267 148,620 187,887 Total Expenditures 39,267 1,060,733 1,100,000

Sources of Funding Roads Capital Reserve Fund 1,100,000

Total Sources of Funding 1,100,000 COMMUNICATIONS Upon approval, a notice of award will be sent to the successful bidder and instructions will be provided to proceed with the work as per the contract. In addition, notification will be provided to the Area Municipality and the public will be notified through local media and the District’s website. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Award of Contract No. 15-313-156 for Jevins Creek Bridge Replacement supports the following goal and strategy as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 4. To maintain a safe and reliable road and bridge system that supports the existing and

future needs of Muskoka. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Original signed by Mark Misko, C.E.T. Fred W. Jahn, P. Eng. Sharon Donald, CPA, CMA Manager of Roads Commissioner of Engineering Director of Budgets Maintenance & Construction and Public Works and Financial Planning

Page 2

PW-12-2015-4 Attachment A

Jevins Creek Bridge Location

Page 3

TO: Chair and Members Engineering and Public Works Committee FROM: Mark Misko, C.E.T. Manager of Roads Maintenance & Construction DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Award of Contract No. 15-313-158 – Muskoka Road 10 Bridge

Rehabilitation - Town of Huntsville REPORT NO: PW-12-2015-5 RECOMMENDATION THAT Contract No. 15-313-158 for the rehabilitation of the Muskoka Road 10 Bridge in the Town of Huntsville BE AWARDED to the low bidder, MTM-2 Contracting Incorporated, in the amount of $136,380.00 which is included in the 2015 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast. ORIGIN The District Municipality of Muskoka reviews the condition of all bridges and large culverts in its road network on a bi-annual basis to identify reconstruction/replacement needs. The Muskoka Road 10 Bridge has been identified as a candidate structure for rehabilitation based on its current condition. A location map has been included as Attachment A. ANALYSIS Seven bids were received on September 3, 2015 in the amounts listed hereunder. An evaluation of the bids was conducted to review the experience of the contractors and sub-contractors and to identify any irregularities with the submissions. Contractor Location Bid 1. MTM-2 Contracting Inc. Milton $136,380.00 2. Carlington Construction Inc. Stoney Creek $170,155.00 3. National Structures Inc. Belleville $170,326.00 4. Horseshoe Hill Construction Inc. Bolton $191,305.00 5. HC Matcon Inc. Toronto $193,812.48 6. R&G Construction Huntsville $215,655.87 7. Facca Incorporated Ruscom Station $220,580.00

Page 1

This contract is scheduled to commence on October 5, 2015 with a targeted completion date of November 13, 2015. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The tender falls within the budget allocation for the project. This project is included in the 2015 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast as Project No. 313048 with a total amended budget of $250,000. The financing is 100% Roads Capital Reserve Fund.

Life to Date

Commitments/Actual Forecast to Complete

Total Amended Project Budget

Project # 313048 2015 Minor Structure Rehab Expenditures Construction

136,380 136,380

Other Project Costs 18,512 95,108 113,620 Total Expenditures 18,512 231,488 250,000

Sources of Funding Roads Capital Reserve Fund 250,000

Total Sources of Funding 250,000 COMMUNICATIONS Upon approval, a notice of award will be sent to the successful bidder and instructions will be provided to proceed with the work as per the contract. In addition, notification will be provided to the Area Municipality and the public will be notified through local media and the District’s website. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Award of Contract No. 15-313-158 Muskoka Road 10 Bridge Rehabilitation supports the following goal and strategy as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 4. To maintain a safe and reliable road and bridge system that supports the existing and

future needs of Muskoka. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Original signed by Mark Misko, C.E.T. Fred W. Jahn, P. Eng. Sharon Donald, CPA, CMA Manager of Roads Commissioner of Engineering Director of Budgets Maintenance & Construction and Public Works and Financial Planning

Page 2


Muskoka Road 10 Bridge Location

Page 3

TO: Chair and Members Engineering and Public Works Committee FROM: Mark Misko, C.E.T. Manager of Roads Maintenance & Construction DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Closure of Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road) and Muskoka Road 13

(Southwood Road) REPORT NO: PW-12-2015-6 RECOMMENDATION THAT permission BE GRANTED to close Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road) at the Muskoka Road 10 Bridge (Structure 010042) between 12:00 a.m. on October 5, 2015 and 5:00 p.m. on November 13, 2015 to accommodate the rehabilitation of this structure; AND THAT permission BE GRANTED to close Muskoka Road 13 (Southwood Road) at Jevins Creek Bridge (Structure 013099) between 12:00 a.m. on October 5, 2015 and 5:00 p.m. on December 18, 2015 to accommodate the replacement of this structure. ORIGIN The District Municipality of Muskoka reviews the condition of all bridges and large culverts in its road network on a bi-annual basis to identify reconstruction/replacement needs. Both of the subject structures have been identified as candidates for rehabilitation (Muskoka Road 10 Bridge) or replacement (Muskoka Road 13 Bridge). Location maps and proposed detour routes are included in Attachment A. ANALYSIS Both of the subject structures have narrow platform widths which makes closure of a single lane unsafe for motorists proceeding through the construction zone. In addition to this, ensuring that one lane remains passable would increase both the construction schedules and cost. The scope of work for the Muskoka Road 10 Bridge includes upgrades to both structural portions of the bridge (concrete re-facing and crack sealing), as well as safety related components (steel beam guiderail and rock protection). Due to the configuration and limited working space available, a closure has been requested in order to accommodate these

Page 1

improvements. Given that closure of Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road) will involve a lengthy detour (approximately 33km for the both the northern and southern portions), staff reviewed the average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume. An AADT of 450 vehicles at the west end and 150 vehicles at the east end of Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road) indicate that this road can be considered to have low volumes of traffic. As such, impacts to traffic are expected to be minimal. The scope of work for the Jevins Creek Bridge includes a full replacement of the existing structure with poured concrete wing walls, approach slabs, pile caps, distribution slabs and installation of an open bottom concrete box culvert. Consideration during design has accommodated additional storm water flow capacity. Traffic impacts associated with this closure, while longer in length than the Muskoka Road 10 Bridge, are expected to be even less impactful as the available detour is only an additional 6 km (as shown in Attachment A). FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The financial considerations for both projects are outlined in Report No. PW-12-2015-4 (Jevins Creek Bridge Replacement) and Report No. PW-12-2015-5 (Muskoka Road 10 Bridge Rehabilitation), respectively. The actual closures of Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road) and Muskoka Road 13 (Southwood Road) have no further financial implications. COMMUNICATIONS Upon approval, a notice of award will be sent to the successful contractors as well as CC Tatham and Associates (the project consultant). Notice will also be provided to Emergency Services, Trillium Lakelands District School Board, the Towns of Huntsville and Gravenhurst and local media. The District will also post closure information on our website. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the road closures of Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road) and Muskoka Road 13 (Southwood Road) for structure rehabilitation and/or replacement supports the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 4. To maintain a safe and reliable road and bridge system that supports the existing and

future needs of Muskoka. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Mark Misko, C.E.T. Fred W. Jahn, P. Eng. Manager of Roads Commissioner of Engineering Maintenance & Construction and Public Works

Page 2


Closure Locations and Proposed Detour Maps

Muskoka Road 10 (Britannia Road)

Page 3

Muskoka Road 13 (Southwood Road)

Page 4


Engineering and Public Works Committee

FROM: Derrick Hammond, MCIP, RPP Director, Continuous Improvement Unit

DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Renewable Energy Projects and District of Muskoka Lands REPORT NO: PW-12-2015-7 RECOMMENDATION This report is provided for information. ORIGIN

During recent Engineering and Public Works and Planning and Economic Development Committee meetings, questions arose respecting the renewable energy projects proposed on District lands. In addition to the proposed partnership arrangement, the Engineering and Public Works Committee members were interested in understanding if consideration had been given to the District itself submitting applications to the Independent Electricity System Operator’s (IESO) Feed in Tariff-4 (FIT-4) program and developing renewable (solar) energy projects on District lands. In addition, clarification was requested as to how District interests would be protected should the IESO award one or more of these projects a FIT-4 program contract. ANALYSIS Project Location Over this past summer, municipalities across Ontario were approached by private renewable energy development companies seeking partnership arrangements in, or support for, FIT-4 applications to develop renewable energy projects on municipal, First Nations or privately owned lands. Report No. CES-8-2015-12 documents the background on the FIT-4 program and identified that Muskoka was approached by three such firms who expressed interest in developing a potential renewable energy project on sixteen (16) District owned sites across Muskoka. Interest in a few of these sites has been withdrawn by the proponents as further investigation revealed that the site was not suitable. Appendix “I” provides a revised list of sites. Appendix “II” shows the geographic location of these sites.

Page 1


Project Approval and Development It is recognized that the District could have taken an active role in undertaking the approval and development processes for a renewable energy project itself or in partnership with an Area Municipality. However, these approaches were not pursued due to lack of staff expertise, desire to avoid competition with the private sector and the cost/benefit ratio of the resources and time required to prepare a detailed submission that may not be successful. With these matters in mind, as noted in CES-8-2015-12, for the FIT-4 program, the approach taken involves the District taking a passive landlord role and partnering with a company that has experience with renewable energy project approval and development. Going forward, if further FIT programs are offered and Committee or Council wish to take on a more active role involving a financial investment in a project(s), this type of approach could be considered and evaluated using lessons learned from the FIT-4 process. Renewable Energy Project Approvals The IESO is a Provincial Crown Corporation that operates the electricity market and therefore buys, sells and trades electricity as a commodity. The FIT program was established to encourage the development of renewable energy production projects to feed into the bulk electrical system. The project selection process is described in CES-8-2015-12. If a proposed project is awarded a contract by the IESO, depending on its size, it is subject to one of two approvals processes established and regulated by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). Typically, the majority of projects are subject to the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) process, which has extensive information and notification requirements for the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of projects. Successful projects are issued a Renewable Energy Approval by the MOECC. However, smaller solar projects of 500Kw or less are subject to the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) system. This process contains prescribed criteria, which if met, would permit the development of a project without the need for a Renewable Energy Approval by the MOECC, subject to other applicable legislation (i.e. Endangered Species Act) and policies. Once the criteria are met, the proponent simply self-registers the project on the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry. The EASR process criteria include, but are not limited to: i) area of facility must be less than four (4) ha; ii) the lands are zoned and used for an industrial or institutional use; iii) the facility location must be 15 metres from a property boundary and 30 metres away from a water body and 250 metres from an archaeological site, or located within an area of archaeological potential etc.. In addition, there are also requirements for noise emissions (from transformers) and record keeping. District Interests As the size of the facilities being proposed by the proponents on District lands are less than 500Kw, the EASR process is applicable. Given that no provincial approval is required or issued through this process, it appears that the only way to ensure that specific District interests are addressed to the extent possible is to include certain covenants in the lease with each proponent. However, the IESO places limits on the nature of the covenants that may be included by municipalities in such documents. In this regard, as the FIT-4 Rules currently only permit conditions in options to lease or leases in favour of the applicant, the Crown, and First Nations, staff consulted with the IESO as to whether or not this approach complies with these rules. In an email response, the IESO would not speculate on the types of provisions that could be included in leases. As a result, the applicants’ solicitors and the District Solicitor are collaborating on drafting language to be included in the lease that would not offend the FIT-4 rules. The matters to be addressed are identified in



Appendix “III”. No such lease would be signed by the signing officers until the provisions addressing these matters are to the satisfaction of the District Solicitor. This approach will ensure us to ensure that appropriate background studies are completed and appropriate site plan developed prior to development occurring, there is an opportunity for consultation with neighbours throughout the life of the development and adequate securities are provided to Muskoka to ensure that each site is appropriately decommissioned. Once the option to lease and lease have been prepared to the District’s satisfaction, a copy will be sent as information to the Area Municipal CAOs as indicated during PED-9-2015 by the District CAO. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS If one of the proponents’ proposals is awarded a FIT-4 contract and a lease arrangement is successfully concluded, it will have the potential to positively influence the District’s financial position. COMMUNICATIONS Staff will provide a status update on the projects should an option to lease or lease be successfully negotiated and if they are awarded a FIT-4 contract. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on Renewable Energy Projects and District of Muskoka Lands supports the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 1. Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental,

economic, social and cultural elements. Recognize that in Muskoka a healthy and vibrant economy depends upon wise stewardship of the environment. Build on the cultural heritage of Muskoka and demonstrate municipal leadership in environmentally sustainable policies, programs and practices.

Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Derrick Hammond, MCIP, RPP Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B Director, Continuous Improvement Unit Chief Administrative Officer S:\CI\C (COUNCIL AND BY-LAWS)\C05 - Department Records for Committee Agendas, Minutes & Resolutions\COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL REPORTS\2015\09-September\PW-12-2015-7 Renewable Energy Projects and District of Muskoka Lands.docx


PW-12-2015-7Appendix I

Page 4

Municipality Roll Number Legal Description Site Name Proponent

1 Bracebridge 44180400200301 Pt Lot 8, Con 1 Peake Fields South (Fraserburg Road)

Abundant Solar Energy Inc.

2 Gravenhurst 440203000602803 Pt Lot 27, Range WMR Sedore RoadAbundant Solar Energy Inc.

3 Gravenhurst 440202001506503 Pt Lot 16, Con 6 Hoc Roc RiverAbundant Solar Energy Inc.

Gravenhurst 440202001800103 Pt Lots 18, 19, Con 7 Gravenhurst Wastewater Treatment Campus


4 Gravenhurst 44020300700500 Pt Lot 8, Range WMRCanning and Baseline Road


5 Huntsville 444202001010400Pt Lots 23, 24, 25, Con 2

Golden Pheasant Waste Water Treatment Campus

Petawawa Renewable Power Corporation

6 Huntsville 444204001910400 Pt Lot 32, Con 14 Stephenson Sewage Lagoon


7 Lake of Bays 44270400073800 Pt Lots 17, 18, Con 9 McClean Transfer Station


8 Muskoka Lakes 445306002407000Pt Lots 21, 22, 23, Con 1

Eveleigh Transfer Station


9 Georgian Bay 446501001005100 Pt Lot 24 and 25, Con 312 Mile Bay Road Lagoon and Waste Transfer Site

Rising Sun Community Power Corporation

10 Bracebridge 441802000108001 Pt Lots 2, 3, Con 12 Bracebridge Wastewater Treatment Campus


11 Lake of Bays 44270100110980 Pt Lot 4, Con 8Franklin Waste Transfer Station


12 Lake of Bays 442703000310800 Pt Lot 2, Cons 9 and 10 Dorset Waste Transfer Station


Lake of Bays 44270300311803 Pt Lot 1, Con 10Dorset Waste Transfer Station


Muskoka Lakes 445305000301200 Pt Lot 30, Con 4Port Carling Wastewater Treatment Campus


13 Muskoka Lakes 445306001603400 Pt Lot 16, Con GMuskoka Road 169 and North Acton Island Road


Potential Fit-4 Application Sites

BaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysvilleBaysville

GravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurstGravenhurst

BracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridgeBracebridge

Port CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort CarlingPort Carling

HuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsvilleHuntsville

BalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBalaBala

MactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactierMactier

Port SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort SevernPort Severn

3

2

4

10

1

11

127

5

6

138

9

The information contained herein may be erroneous, inaccurate or misleading. The parties compiling and/or disclosing the information make no warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy of any or all of the information contained herein.

Any party relying on this information does so at their own risk and shall not, under any circumstances, make any claim against anyone on the grounds that the information was erroneous, inaccurate or misleading.

The Ontario Road Network Database is the property of the Government of Ontarioand is used under licence from the Government of Ontario.

Produced by the District of Muskoka under licence fromOntario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2015.INCLUDES MATERIAL © 2015 OF THE QUEEN’S PRINTER FOR ONTARIO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

This road network information has been generated or adapted from Ontario RoadNetwork Database, a database built from source data provided by the Municipalitiesof Ontario to the Government of Ontario under licence.

PW-12-2015-7Appendix II

Potential Solar Infrastructure Use Locations District of Muskoka

Page 5

PW-12-2015-7 Appendix III

FIT-4 Project Lease Components

Given that there are typically three (3) phases of development with a typical small renewable energy project, (construction, operation and decommissioning) the following matters should be addressed in a lease to the satisfaction of the District Municipality of Muskoka:

1. The recognition that each site is unique and therefore the proposed access and design of each site may differ;

2. In view of the above, background technical studies including but not limited to a stormwater management and construction mitigation plan and scoped environmental study (species at risk) must be completed in advance of and inform the preparation of a site plan for each site;

3. The preparation of a Design and Operations Plan for each site which includes, but is not limited to a detailed site plan and details on how the construction, operation (dealing with emergencies etc.) and decommissioning of the project will occur in accordance with all applicable legislation and policies;

4. The Design and Operations Plan shall also identify how notification to neighbouring property owners prior to the commencement of construction, during project operation, and prior to and after decommissioning;

5. Details on the need for a decommissioning security for each site prior to the commencement of construction;

6. Details on the lease rate for each site;

7. Insurance requirements for each site; and

8. Other matters that may be identified by the parties prior to the signing of the lease for each site.

Page 6


COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

MEETING NO. CS-10-2015

MINUTES

PLACE: Council Chamber, District Administration Building

TIME: 1:30 p.m.

DATE: September 23, 2015

PRESENT: Committee Vice Chair R. Lacroix; Members S. Cairns, P. Cooper, R. Nishikawa

ABSENT: District Chair J. Klinck; Committee Chair S. Clement; Member K. Terziano

OFFICIALS PRESENT: M. Duben, Chief Administrative Officer; R. Williams,Commissioner of Community Services

ALSO PRESENT: Deputy District Chair L. Giaschi-Pacini; H. Moore, Director of Programs; M. Bergin, Manager of Housing; H. Elliott, Manager of Community Engagement and Social Enterprise; C. Faber, Project Manager, Muskoka Community Health Link; T. Kilbourne, Manager of Children’s Programs; M. Malcolm, Manager of Programs (Financial); J. Mattice, Manager of Housing Development; C. Parlett, Manager of Programs (Employment); J. Suddaby, Case Aide; J. Yeo, Manager of Facilities; M. Ross,Communications Officer; A. Back, Deputy Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Committee Vice-Chair R. Lacroix called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.

DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS

None were declared.

STAFF PRESENTATIONS

a) Jocelyn Suddaby, Community Engagement & Social EnterprisePay It Forward Program Update

Ms. Suddaby provided a digital presentation which featured a selection of 2015 Pay itForward grant recipients and highlighted the program’s continued success.

To access Ms. Suddaby’s presentation, please click on the following link:https://muskoka.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=26690


b) Tina Kilbourne, Children’s ServicesMuskoka Home Child Care Agency

Ms. Kilbourne provided a digital presentation which highlighted the Muskoka Home ChildCare Agency.

To access Ms. Kilbourne’s presentation, please click on the following link:https://muskoka.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=26691

BUDGETS AND FINANCIAL PLANNING

a) Community Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report June 30, 2015Report No. CS-10-2015-1

Moved by R. Nishikawa and seconded by P. Cooper R58/2015-CS

THAT the Community Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED.

Carried.

b) Age-Friendly Community Planning Grant Program Budget AmendmentReport No. CS-10-2015-2

Moved by P. Cooper and seconded by S. Cairns R59/2015-CS

THAT the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget as it relates to Community Initiatives BE AMENDED and that the respective draft budgets for 2016 and 2017 be included as follows:

Carried.

FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

a) Muskoka Community Health Link UpdateReport No. CS-10-2015-3

Ms. Faber highlighted her report.


b) Community Services Recognition Program Report No. CS-10-2015-4 This information was provided for information.

c) Resources for the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative Report No. CS-10-2015-5 Mr. Williams noted that while the report notes a March 2017 termination date, it is anticipated that the position would be absorbed into the Community Services department reorganization which is scheduled to begin in 2016.

Moved by S. Cairns and seconded by P. Cooper R60/2015-CS

THAT the Department Complement BE AMENDED to reflect the addition of 1 Manager of Homelessness, filled late October, 2015 and terminating on March 31, 2017 in accordance with all District policies, procedures and applicable Collective Agreements; AND THAT the position will BE REVIEWED as part of the 2017 Corporate Budget deliberations; AND THAT the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget BE AMENDED as outlined in the following table, based on an M3 classification which is subject to a job evaluation.

Carried. d) Follow Up Meeting with United Way

Report No. CS-10-2015-6 This report was provided for information.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE a) Ontario Works Caseload

Report No. CS-10-2015-7 This report was provided for information.

SOCIAL HOUSING / AFFORDABLE HOUSING a) Attic Ventilation Improvements – Pinedale Road

Report No. CS-10-2015-8

Moved by R. Nishikawa and seconded by S. Cairns R61/2015-CS

THAT the 2015 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast BE AMENDED to include attic ventilation improvements at 815-887 Pinedale Road in Gravenhurst as outlined in the following table:

Carried. b) Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP) Capital Incentive Funding

Recommendation – Greg Knight (1006 Clear Lake Rd, Torrance) Report No. CS-10-2015-9 Ms. Mattice highlighted her report. It was confirmed that no funds would be released to the applicant until such time that a local zoning matter, currently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has been resolved.

Moved by P. Cooper and seconded by S. Cairns R62/2015-CS

THAT a municipal housing facilities by-law BE PREPARED for the provision of new rental housing for Greg Knight, located at 1006 Clear Lake Rd., Torrance; AND THAT the by-law AUTHORIZE FUNDS in the amount of $15,000 for one (1) new rental unit (secondary suite) to be made available to the proponent;

AND THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka BE AUTHORIZED to enter into an agreement for new rental housing with Greg Knight; AND THAT the terms of the agreement BE SATISFACTORY to the Commissioner of Community Services and the District Solicitor; AND THAT the District Chair and Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the agreement on behalf of The District Municipality of Muskoka.

Carried. c) Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP) Capital Incentive Funding

Recommendation – Greg Knight (4651 Southwood Rd., Torrance) Report No. CS-10-2015-10 It was once again confirmed that no funds would be released to the applicant until such time that a local zoning matter has been resolved.

Moved by S. Cairns and seconded by R. Nishikawa R63/2015-CS

THAT a municipal housing facilities by-law BE PREPARED for the provision of new rental housing for Greg Knight, located at 4651 Southwood Rd., Torrance; AND THAT the by-law AUTHORIZE FUNDS in the amount of $15,000 for one (1) new rental unit to be made available to the proponent; AND THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka BE AUTHORIZED to enter into an agreement for new rental housing with Greg Knight; AND THAT the terms of the agreement BE SATISFACTORY to the Commissioner of Community Services and the District Solicitor; AND THAT the District Chair and Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the agreement on behalf of The District Municipality of Muskoka.

Carried.

Subsequent to the meeting, it was confirmed that the OMB hearing is not scheduled until 2016. Therefore by-laws for the two reports above will not be prepared for Council’s consideration until a decision from the OMB has been reached and the zoning matter resolved.

INFORMATION ITEMS a) Report No. CES-11-2015-4 – Establishing a Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund

CS-10-2015-Info-A Ms. Moore highlighted the report and noted that the recommendation had been approved by the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee at its September 21 meeting.

b) OANHSS – Championing the Need for Capacity Planning CS-10-2015-Info-B

NEW BUSINESS a) Syrian Refugee Crisis

Deputy District Chair Giaschi-Pacini noted that the Town of Bracebridge had recently approved a resolution regarding the Syrian refugee crisis and urged the Committee to pass a similar motion, as requested by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Without prior notice, and with the concurrence of more than 2/3 of Committee members present and eligible to vote, Committee Vice-Chair Lacroix introduced the following motion:

Moved by S. Cairns and seconded by P. Cooper R64/2015-CS

THAT the support of the District of Muskoka for an immediate and pro-active "all-party” response to the unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis at both the Federal and Provincial levels of Canadian government be confirmed; AND THAT both the Federal and Provincial governments be encouraged to support organizations that help the extremely vulnerable Syrian refugees to resettle and rebuild their lives in Ontario and throughout Canada; AND THAT information regarding the ways in which local residents can support Syrian refugee relief efforts be made available through the District's website; AND THAT in response to the request from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), and in support of Resolution No. 15-TC-17 approved by Bracebridge Town Council on September 16, 2015, a donation of $600.00 be made to Lifeline Syria through AMO to aid in international efforts to resettle the Syrian refugees in safe countries;

AND THAT the donation be funded through the existing Community Initiatives Budget; AND FINALLY THAT this resolution be circulated to MP Tony Clement, MPP Norm Miller, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Ontario, New Democratic Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Ontario, the municipalities in the District of Muskoka and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Carried.

ADJOURNMENT

Moved by S. Cairns and seconded by R. Nishikawa P65/2015-CS

THAT the Community Services Committee adjourns to meet again on October 21, 2015, or at the call of the Chair.

Carried. The meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m. _________________________ Deputy Clerk

TO: Chair and Members Community Services Committee

FROM: Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services


SUBJECT: Community Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report – June 30, 2015

REPORT NO: CS-10-2015-1 ____________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Community Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED.

ORIGIN

Policy AD:52, Operating Budget Administration, requires the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services to provide the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee, the other Standing Committees and Council with a written status report on the yearly budgets on a quarterly basis. This report highlights significant budget variances for the Tax Supported Operating Budget.

ANALYSIS

Attached to this report is a schedule that outlines the significant budget variances for the period ending June 30, 2015. The schedule provides an overall department view as well as a breakdown for the department by major object along with a brief narrative description of the variances.

The Tax Supported Operating Variance Report by Object shows the year-to-date (YTD)actuals ending June 30, 2014 and the annual budget for 2014, YTD actuals ending June30, 2015 and the annual budget for 2015. The next two columns compare the YTDactuals to the annual budget in terms of dollars remaining in the budget and thepercentage of budget spent. The final two columns indicate projected annual varianceand comments.

Page 1

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The recording issues from the first quarter report have been remedied and all entries are now current. There is one area with a slight projected year-end unfavourable variance within the Community Services department. Ontario Works caseloads are higher than originally budgeted for 2015. The budget anticipated a 1% increase in caseload based on the first half of 2014. To date in 2015, the actual caseload is 4.6% higher than 2014 and 3.6% higher than the budget. As a result, an unfavourable variance in the net levy is projected of $5,100 for year-end. This projection assumes that caseload will continue to be 4.6% higher than 2014 for the remainder of the year. The estimate will change as the caseload increases or decreases throughout the year. Staff has reviewed the various operating budgets and although there are other individual budget variances within the various operating budgets, there is nothing, at this time, to indicate that there will be any other year-end variances for the department as a whole. COMMUNICATIONS Operating Budget Variance Reports are submitted to the Standing Committees and Council on a quarterly basis for results as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st of each year. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The report on the Tax Supported Operating Budget variance supports the following goal as outlined in the District’s Strategic Priorities: 2. Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountability through



Page 2

TS Variance by Object Committee-CS

Community Services Run Date: 9/14/15 1:54 PM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Personnel 6,530,411 13,438,073 6,812,680 14,187,480 7,374,800 48.0% Favourable variance due to the delay in hiring new approved staff in OW and Housing departments.

Employee Related Expenses 41,374 115,593 58,292 135,985 77,693 42.9% Timing variance for Travel costs that will occur over the remainder of the year.

Materials & Supplies 1,212,497 2,757,024 1,278,387 2,619,622 1,341,235 48.8% On budget.Purchased Services 1,054,048 2,506,159 1,765,259 5,259,831 3,494,572 33.6% Timing variance for Childcare Program Services. Consultant

costs for LHIN will be under budget due to reduced funding.

Transfer To Others 7,577,629 16,660,915 7,951,079 16,021,397 8,070,318 49.6% (60,000) Ontario Works caseload forecasts indicate projected variance due to higher increase in caseload volumes than budgeted. Timing variance for Childcare Fee Subsidy and Affordable Housing.

Minor Capital 25,618 25,000 (618) 102.5%Total Operating Costs 16,415,959 35,477,764 17,891,315 38,249,315 20,358,000 46.8% (60,000)

Finance Charges/ReservesFinance Charges 432,762 934,124 453,491 941,274 487,783 48.2% On budget.Reserves 540,963 858,100 540,958 727,535 186,577 74.4% Timing variance as transfer from Affordable Housing Reserve

will coincide with associated Affordable Housing programs.

Total Finance Charges/Reserves 973,725 1,792,224 994,449 1,668,809 674,360 59.6%Net Internal Service Charges

Fleet 18,936 33,570 33,783 66,460 32,677 50.8% On budget.Insurance 42,500 85,000 50,950 101,900 50,950 50.0% On budget.Support Services 509,129 1,004,460 567,786 1,132,450 564,664 50.1% On budget.Total Net Internal Service Charges 570,565 1,123,030 652,519 1,300,810 648,291 50.2%

Total Expenditures 17,960,249 38,393,018 19,538,283 41,218,934 21,680,651 47.4% (60,000) Revenues


Page 3

TS Variance by Object Committee-CS





Grants (11,330,324) (24,683,674) (12,681,131) (26,419,402) (13,738,271) 48.0% 54,900 Ontario Works caseload forecasts indicate projected variance due to higher increase in caseload volumes than budgeted. Timing variance for LHIN due to reduced funding and Children's Services due to the delayed start date for Muskoka Home Childcare Agency.

User Fees (2,761,953) (5,536,533) (2,784,991) (6,004,522) (3,219,531) 46.4% Muskoka Home Childcare Agency program not yet started.

Developer Contributions (300,000) (300,000) Timing variance for Affordable Housing Gateway Homeownership program.

Other (892) (16,100) (1,658) (16,100) (14,442) 10.3% Timing variance for Energy Rebates for Community Housing and The Pines to be received in the second half of the year.

Total Revenues (14,093,169) (30,236,307) (15,467,780) (32,740,024) (17,272,244) 47.2% 54,900 Total Net Levy 3,867,080 8,156,711 4,070,503 8,478,910 4,408,407 48.0% (5,100)

Page 4

TS Variance Net Levy Summary-CS




Community ServicesOntario Works Financial 516,342 1,129,248 437,747 799,730 361,983 54.7% (5,100) Ontario Works caseload forecasts indicate projected variance

due to slightly higher increase in caseload volumes than budgeted.

Ontario Works Programs 1,048,118 2,109,448 876,984 2,183,963 1,306,979 40.2% Forecast to be on budget for year-end.Community Development Initiatives 140,770 344,595 84,725 396,454 311,729 21.4% Forecast to be on budget for year-end based on Report CS-8-

2015-4.Homelessness 11,087 124,814 21,116 124,814 103,698 16.9% Utilization of deferred Ministry funding at the beginning of the

year lessens the portion of levy spent to date. Forecast to be on budget for year-end.

Best Start Planning A525 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% On budget.MED Childcare 152,556 396,986 240,640 396,986 156,346 60.6% On budget.Strengthening Communities 40,363 82,611 (5,767) 82,611 88,378 (7.0%) Program expenditures to be incurred over the remainder of

the year.Muskoka Home Childcare Agency 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% On budget.

Community Housing 1,130,292 2,173,281 1,281,913 2,405,435 1,123,522 53.3% High Utility and Unit Turnover costs are offset by low Building Maintenance costs in Housing Operations. Forecast to be on budget for year-end overall.

Affordable Housing 210,032 558,000 390,977 681,700 290,723 57.4% There has been some delay as partners have been working towards a process for the release of funds. There will be a report in September about establishing a Reserve Fund, which will allow the program to be delivered as anticipated going forward.

LHIN & Accessibility 10,659 10,000 3,041 10,000 6,959 30.4% Timing variance for Accessibility as nothing has been spent to date.

Pines Operations 430,319 977,044 461,847 1,146,533 684,686 40.3% Under budget for one-time Materials & Equipment purchases to be made in the last half of the year.

Pines Debt 176,542 250,684 277,280 250,684 (26,596) 110.6% Timing variance for scheduled debt payments vs. monthly receipt of offsetting provincial funding.

Total Community Services 3,867,080 8,156,711 4,070,503 8,478,910 4,408,407 48.0% (5,100)


Page 5


FROM: Heather Elliott Manager, Community Engagement and Social Enterprise


SUBJECT: Age-Friendly Community Planning Grant Program Budget Amendment

REPORT NO: CS-10-2015-2 ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget as it relates to Community Initiatives BE AMENDED and that the respective draft budgets for 2016 and 2017 be included as follows:

Age Friendly Community Planning Grant 2015 2016 2017

Consultant 5,000 13,000 6,000 Community Engagement 500 3,785 1,715 Communication Materials 500 1,000 1,000 Report Production and Distribution 2,500 Total Expenditure 6,000 17,785 11,215 Grant (6,000) (17,785) (11,215) Net Levy Impact 0 0 0

ORIGIN

Report No. CS-8-2015-5.

ANALYSIS

Following Report No. CS-8-2015-5 presented in July, the steering committee for the Muskoka Aging Plan has met and set priorities and timelines. The outcome of this meeting has resulted in an additional budget amendment for 2015 and subsequent changes to the draft budgets in 2016 and 2017.

The Age-Friendly Community Planning Grant will support local innovative strategic planning to ensure the needs of seniors are considered at every stage of community development. There are several objectives that could be set as a basis for this application; the District’s focus is supporting social participation and inclusion of seniors. The grant submission outlines the following activities to engage seniors and community stakeholders across the District to

Page 1



assess needs, identify priority action areas and create a detailed Master Aging Plan (MAP) for the District of Muskoka: 1. Establish an inventory of all seniors’ needs assessment data collected in the region from

previous age-friendly and aging research activities. 2. Identify any assessment gaps and conduct engagement or assessment activities required

to fill those gaps. 3. Map existing seniors programs and services available in the region and highlight gaps in

services for seniors. 4. Use the eight essential dimensions of Age-Friendly Communities (AFC) to assess the

environment, services and policies in communities across the District. 5. Identify priority action areas and draft a Master Aging Plan (MAP) to align policies, services

and structures related to the physical and social environments that will enable older people in Muskoka to live active, safe and meaningful lives.

6. Facilitate communication and collaboration between the upper and lower-tier municipalities,

agencies and the broader community to support implementation of the MAP and endorsement of AFC planning in Muskoka.

To achieve the above activities, representatives from the Seniors Services Planning Table including District staff and local seniors from across the District will be recruited to form a project steering committee. This committee will establish guiding principles for the age-friendly community planning process, build partnerships and confirm local priorities for the Muskoka MAP while ensuring the activities listed above are undertaken. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The grant includes consultant fees and project co-ordination, community consultations, marketing, report production and distribution. The chart in the recommendation details the expenditures related to this program over three fiscal years. These additions to the operating budget have no impact on the Net Levy, as the expenditures are fully offset by grant revenue.

COMMUNICATIONS A media strategy is to be developed in collaboration with our community partners in seniors’ programming. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Age-Friendly Community Planning Grant supports the following goal and strategy as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 6. Efficiently deliver community and human services with compassion and dignity while

meeting the unique needs of those being served. Focus the measurement of program success on outcomes for the various client programs.

Page 2

6.8 Advance the outreach of community services programs to the townships and non-urban areas through partnerships with Area Municipalities and community groups.

Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Heather Elliott Rick Williams Manager, Community Engagement Commissioner of Community Services and Social Enterprise Original signed by Sharon Donald Director, Budgets & Financial Planning

Page 3


FROM: Cheryl Faber Project Manager, Muskoka Community Health Link


SUBJECT: Muskoka Community Health Link Update

REPORT NO: CS-10-2015-3 ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

This report is provided for information.

ORIGIN

This report has been initiated as an update to Report No. CS-9-2015-4

BACKGROUND

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) website indicates that “five per cent of patients account for two-thirds of health care costs. These are most often patients with multiple, complex conditions. When the hospital, the family doctor, the long-term care home, community organizations and others work as a team, the patient receives better, more coordinated care.”

Muskoka Community Health Link, funded by the MOHLTC through the North Simcoe Muskoka Local Health Integration Network (NSM LHIN) is aimed at providing coordinated, integrated approaches to better coordinate care for the most complex 5% of patients utilizing local health care resources. Muskoka Community Health Link, led by The District Municipality of Muskoka and in collaboration with health care providers from across Muskoka are working together on several priorities to achieve this end.

The Muskoka Community Health Link is a partnership between The District Municipality of Muskoka as the Executive Lead / Chair and the Algonquin and Cottage Country Family Health Teams, the North Muskoka Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic, the North Simcoe Muskoka Community Care Access Centre, Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare, Canadian Mental Health Association, Muskoka-Parry Sound (MPS) Branch and other community agencies.

Page 1

https://muskoka.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/26658

https://muskoka.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/26658

Muskoka Community Health Link’s guiding principles (below) clearly outline the leadership approach to be taken for implementing the priorities and in turn to be accountable for the funding. The Muskoka Community Health Link: • Will develop and organize in a collaborative partnership model whereby integration

opportunities and economies of scale will be realized. • Will ensure that the quality of care to the population of Muskoka is a number one priority,

including the target population of 1-5% of the users that are costing the system between 30-60% of annualized resources.

• Will be a new way of doing business together, integrated, collaborative, person-centred and preventative.

• Will evolve and improve over time, from a Health Link Steering Committee governance and accountability perspective to one that is more reflective of the future needs of a Muskoka Centric Integrated System and the appropriate partners.

• Will offer the right care, at the right time, in the right place and at the right cost ensuring a consistent model of care to all that require it.

• Will be reflective of the population residing in Muskoka, including our First Nation, Metis and Inuit (FNMI) communities and the six municipalities within the District of Muskoka.

ANALYSIS Since the last update, the Muskoka Community Health Link Steering Committee and priority sub-committees have continued to move forward with initiatives, which have been outlined below. Muskoka Health Link Steering Committee In August, the Muskoka Health Link Steering Committee met to review the revised Terms of Reference with a decision made to establish a membership structure supported by a decision making framework whereby sector, geographic and population specific membership will be represented. This will be brought back to the Committee this Fall. Based on the review of the performance metrics at the August Steering Committee meeting, the decision was made to strike a small working group, including participation by Nipissing University’s Human and Social Development Department, to review the Health Link indicators and draft an evaluation framework to meet the immediate measurement needs, as well as the future needs which align with the guiding principles of Health Links. Health Link Priorities a) System Navigation Sub-Committee: The sub-committee’s Action Plan for 2015/16 with the

five key areas of focus was presented, endorsed and supported by the Muskoka Health Link Steering Committee in August.

To achieve the March 31, 2016 target of between 60-80 individuals living with complex conditions (top 5%) to have a Coordinated Care Plan developed, the System Navigation Sub-Committee organized the first education session with a targeted audience to pilot test the Coordinated Care Planning processes drafted this summer. “Planning for Coordinated Care Together” was held on September 10, 2015 with thirty-five individuals (both front line staff and managers) in attendance from Muskoka Parry-Sound Community Mental Health Association, Algonquin Family Health Team (including the Geriatric Care Team), Cottage

Page 2

http://www.muskokacommunity.ca/health-links/system-navigation-coordinated-care-planning/coordinated-care-planning-tools-and-resources

Country Family Health Team (including Port Carling Health Hub), The District Municipality of Muskoka Community Services, North Simcoe Muskoka Behavioural Support System, Hospice Huntsville, North Simcoe Muskoka Community Care Access Centre, Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare, North Muskoka Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinic, The Friends, and the Seniors Assessment & Support Outreach Team. With the seventeen (17) Coordinated Care Plans (CCPs) previously developed with Health Link clients to date, the commitment from the partners in attendance at this session was to test the coordinated planning process with another ten (10) eligible individuals between September 11 and October 31, 2015. The goal of 10 was achieved and surpassed with a resounding commitment to develop sixteen (16) new CCPs with individuals in Muskoka that are eligible for the Health Link Coordinated Planning approach to care. This will bring the total plans developed by the end of October to thirty-three (33).

b) Health Hub Implementation Committee: The September 11, 2015 edition of the

“Hub”ubaloo outlines the progress with the project(s) over the summer and updates from each site.

c) Muskoka-Centric Integrated Health System: As indicated in August, the sub-committee has commenced an early engagement process with stakeholders both “inside” and “outside” the Muskoka health system to seek feedback and build consensus to action for a Muskoka-Centric Integrated Health System.

Presentations have been made to over one hundred individuals and feedback has been received. A survey has also been created and sent to audience members following the presentation to gather input, ideas and suggestions. Presentations have been made to the following: Group / Individuals Audience

Numbers

“Inside” Health System

Muskoka Parry-Sound Nurse Practitioners 16 Muskoka Health Link Steering Committee 12 Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare Strategic Planning Executive Committee 2

Muskoka Community Services Staff 44

“Outside” Health System

Muskoka Community Network 11 Muskoka Community Futures 13 Chair John Klink, Mayor Graydon Smith, Mayor Scott Aitchison, Michael Duben 4

Muskoka Chautauqua 3 Total Audience Numbers: 105

Presentations are being scheduled with the Muskoka Health Link Steering Committee members’ Boards during October and November, as well as with District Council in October and the Town of Gravenhurst in the near future. Other presentations “outside” the Health System in Muskoka are being coordinated, with one scheduled with the Muskoka Chapter of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP) in early November.

Page 3

http://muskokacommunity.ca/files/Key%20Initiatives/Health%20Links/Health%20Hubs/Hububaloo%20-%20Muskoka%20Community%20Health%20Hub%20Update%20-sept%2011%202015.pdf

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS This initiative has no anticipated impacts on the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget. COMMUNICATIONS This information is communicated to the MOHLTC, NSM LHIN, Health Link Steering Committee members, Health Link Sub-Committee members, Community Services Committee, impacted and partner stakeholder audiences, and has a communication and engagement strategy and resource to support the efforts required. For more information, visit the Muskoka Community Health Link website. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Muskoka Community Health Link project supports the following goal and strategy as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 6. Efficiently deliver community and human services with compassion and dignity while


6.5 Through collaboration and networking, provide leadership to the community in

developing and providing key supports to those in need. Concentrate resources in the direct delivery of services to people.

Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Cheryl Faber Rick Williams Project Manager, Muskoka Community Commissioner of Community Services Health Link

Page 4

http://www.muskokacommunity.ca/health-links


FROM: Rick Williams Commissioner of Community Services


SUBJECT: Community Services Recognition Program

REPORT NO: CS-10-2015-4 ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION


ORIGIN

This report was initiated by staff.

ANALYSIS

The continuation of the Community Services Recognition Program is expected to be approved at the September, 2015 District Council meeting. As a result, the following time frames and processes have been established to implement the 2015 Community Services Recognition Program:

Process Timeframe

Nomination Period Deadline: October 9, 2015

Selection Review October 10, 2015 – November 1, 2015

Contact/agreement with selected nominees Early November 2015

Presentation/Recognition Event CS Committee – November 18, 2015

Attached is a nomination form that will be circulated among District Council, CS staff and partner community organizations.

Page 1

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no further financial implications at this time. COMMUNICATIONS This information will be communicated to the public and allied agencies and organizations through electronic distribution channels and social media (@MCSNewsReel and www.mcsnewsreel.ca) as well as sharing information with local radio and print media sources. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Community Services Recognition Program supports the following goal and strategy as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 6. Efficiently deliver community and human services with compassion and dignity while


Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Rick Williams Michael Duben Commissioner of Community Services Chief Administrative Officer

Page 2

http://www.mcsnewsreel.ca/

Updated August 27, 2015

Notice of Collection

Personal information contained on this form is collected by The District Municipality of Muskoka under the authority of applicable legislation and will be used for the purpose of administering the District’s awards and recognition program and for administrative purposes. Questions about the collection of this information may be made to Muskoka Community Services, The District Municipality of Muskoka, 70 Pine Street, Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1N3.

Community Services Recognition Program

Nomination Form

The District Municipality of Muskoka Community Services department would like to recognize outstanding individuals and groups who have contributed to their communities in ways consistent with Community Services’ values and goals. Recipients may be nominated in any of the categories and program areas listed below.

Note: The 2015 Pilot Program is not intended to award recipients in all 15 categories, but rather to highlight 5-7 outstanding individuals or groups.

To nominate an individual or a group for recognition, please complete this Nomination Form and email to Caitlin Friend at [email protected] by October 9, 2015. Please ensure to fill out your contact information so that more information can be gathered if necessary.

Award Categories

Service recipients who

have demonstrated extraordinary success

or growth

Individuals providing

collaboration and support in the community

Organizations that provided exceptional partnership and leadership in collaboration with Community Services

and other community groups in promoting change and

improvement

Seniors Services / The Pines

Ontario Works /

Social Assistance

Housing

Child Care

Other (Youth, Emergency

Assistance, Planning, Networking, Food

Programs, etc.)

Page 3

mailto:[email protected]

Updated August 27, 2015

Notice of Collection

Personal information contained on this form is collected by The District Municipality of Muskoka under the authority of applicable legislation and will be used for the purpose of administering the District’s awards and recognition program and for administrative purposes. Questions about the collection of this information may be made to Muskoka Community Services, The District Municipality of Muskoka, 70 Pine Street, Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1N3.

1. Provide Information about the individual or group to be recognized (Nominee):

Name: Tel: Email: Address: Background:

2. Provide a written summary (max. 500 words) about why the nominee should be considered for this award and describing the impact, creativity and dedication of the nominee’s contribution to community services in Muskoka.

3. Provide additional information such as references, testimonials or additional material to support this nomination (such as letters, publications, media stories, etc.)

4. Your contact information (Nominator):

Name: Tel: Email: Address:

5. Please indicate that you’ve received permission from nominee to put their name forward:

� Permission received � Permission not received

Page 4




SUBJECT: Resources for the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative

REPORT NO: CS-10-2015-5 ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Department Complement BE AMENDED to reflect the addition of 1 Manager of Homelessness, filled late October, 2015 and terminating on March 31, 2017 in accordance with all District policies, procedures and applicable Collective Agreements;

AND THAT the position will BE REVIEWED as part of the 2017 Corporate Budget deliberations;

AND THAT the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget BE AMENDED as outlined in the following table, based on an M3 classification which is subject to a job evaluation.

2015 - 2.5 months 2016 - 12 months 2017 - 3 months Wages & Benefits $23,300 $113,400 $28,900 I.T. Charges $ 1,630 $ 5,010 $ 1,253 Cell Phone $ 130 $ 624 $ 156 Emergency Shelter ($ 3,555) ($ 900) Housing With Supports

($25,060) ($ 49,809) ($12,700)

Services and Supports

($15,360) ($ 3,909)

Homelessness Prevention

($50,310) ($12,800)

Net Levy Impact 0 0 0

ORIGIN


Page 1

BACKGROUND The Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) was introduced by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) in 2013. It replaced previous streams of homelessness funding from both the Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) and MMAH into a single envelope, and allowed Municipal Service Managers to design locally appropriate and prioritized programming. ANALYSIS When CHPI funding allocations were initially announced, they were significantly lower than the combined historical expenditures under the original funding streams. Through the 2013-14 provincial fiscal year, additional, one-time “transition” funding was allocated through MCSS. In the second half of 2014, MMAH announced that it would grant another annual allocation similar in amount to the MCSS funds and further, that the additional funding would be annualized. Local program design, anticipating on-going reduced revenues, were designed to both embrace the flexibility of the new guidelines, but also to establish program benefits that were modest, so as to ensure funding would be available for the full year. When the new annualized funding was announced through the last half of 2014, program staff were expanded to better support all Muskoka citizens, in particular those living in rural areas. To this end, the current Homelessness staff complement includes 7 full or part time staff positions, overseen by two different Program Managers and one Director of Programs. Additionally, homelessness is a pressing issue across the District. The Homelessness Planning Table is proceeding with discussions on a District wide framework to address the matter, we support the Financial Assistance Partnership Group (with membership from a number of service clubs, faith groups and agencies) and a large number of outcomes described in Muskoka’s 10 Year Housing and Homelessness Plan deal directly with work to be done in Homelessness. To quantify the scope of the program, through the 2013-2014 provincial fiscal period, CHPI served almost 3,100 households, through one means or another. For example:

• 332 emergency accommodation vouchers issued • 20 plus individuals in the Housing With Related Supports program on an on-going basis • 1,100 plus households (singles or families) helped to obtain housing • 1,000 plus households (singles or families) helped to maintain housing; and • Almost 700 households helped with transportation to services.

Therefore, it is staff’s recommendation that the program would benefit greatly from a dedicated Program Manager, paralleling our arrangements in Ontario Works, Child Care, Community Housing and New Affordable Housing programs. Due to the increased funding that is now annualized, the complement increase can be accomplished with no increase to the levy. It is proposed that the new position be introduced in October, it be assessed through the last part of 2016, and that the 2017 budget process address potential continuity. To this end, the position will continue through to at least March 31, 2017, to allow the 2017 budget process to be completed.

Page 2

The CS Department is likely to look at realignment beginning in 2016 to achieve the “integrated community hubs” recommended in the Bloom Report (2012) and Strategy Corp. Recommendations (2013). This movement to integrated local delivery is still preferred but has been difficult to achieve within the major disruption of the new SAMS technology. In summary, this initiative:

• Strengthens the coordination and impact of District Homeless and Emergency Supports.

• Operates within existing budget expenditure.

• Will be part of a 2017 realignment of Community Services that will likely strengthen decentralized community hubs.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The financial implications of this action will not result in an increase to the levy contribution for the Emergency Shelter, Housing with Supports, Services & Supports or the Homelessness Prevention Program; as shown in the table included in the recommendation section of this report. COMMUNICATIONS This information is communicated to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, allied service providers, and is part of media coverage for District activities. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Manager of Homelessness supports the following strategies as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

7.1 Create and lead a Muskoka Homelessness Task Force to enhance planning and communications among interested parties and more effectively distribute resources and meet goals.

7.4 Utilize all available senior government funding for affordable housing and

homelessness to improve the housing situation in Muskoka. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Rick Williams Michael Duben Commissioner of Community Services Chief Administrative Officer Original signed by Julie Stevens Commissioner of Corporate and Emergency Services

Page 3




SUBJECT: Follow Up Meeting with United Way

REPORT NO: CS-10-2015-6 ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION


ORIGIN


ANALYSIS

At the August 24, 2015 meeting of District Council, a presentation was received from the Greater Simcoe United Way regarding a recommendation that they seek designation from their national organization to become the United Way of Simcoe Muskoka.

District Council was asked if there were concerns about this suggestion going forward and none were raised.

The Chair of the Community Services Committee recommended to United Way’s Executive Director, Dale Biddell, that she meet with the Commissioner of Community Services to discuss ways that the District could work to assist the United Way in their planning.

This meeting occurred on September 14, 2015 and the following are notes from that follow up discussion:

• There are a number of active charities and stakeholders in Muskoka who will have aninterest in this development. Contact names and organizations will be passed on to theUnited Way to assist with this outreach.

• Some charitable groups are approaching major projects (e.g. Hospice) and this mayneed to be noted in a transition phase.

Page 1

THE _ ISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MusKOKA

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1 L 1 N3

Telephone (705) 645-2412 OR 1-800-461-4215 (705 area code) Fax (705) 645-4272

www.muskoka.on.ca

Managing Our Legacy Together

• There are several very active service coordination/planning tables in Muskoka (children, seniors, poverty reduction, housing/homelessness, transportation, employment, health links, volunteers, crisis response, etc.) that include a wide variety of agencies based in Muskoka or serving Muskoka (the District is a significant member and provides support to many of these tables). These planning processes should be recognized in future needs assessment and priority setting for Muskoka. The District plays an active role in social planning and aoordination.

• The United Way is seeking proposals in 2015 to look at some initial priority areas. It was suggested that youth (including youth housing) and transportation may be areas where significant service gaps exist.

• As this issue moves forward (and if approved by their national organization) there will

be a need to more formally address Muskoka representation on the Board and to have a transparent process of fundraising and allocation as it impacts the District of Muskoka.

There was an agreement to stay in contact and communicate regularly through this transition phase. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no financial implications at this time. COMMUNICATIONS None at this time. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the United Way supports the following goal and strategy as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 6. Efficiently deliver community and human services with compassion and dignity while


6.5 Through collaboration and networking, provide leadership to the community in

developing and providing key supports to those in need. Concentrate resources in the direct delivery of services to people.


Page 2




SUBJECT: Ontario Works Caseload

REPORT NO: CS-10-2015-7 ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION


ORIGIN


ANALYSIS

Monthly reports on the Ontario Works (OW) caseload trends (and analysis of these trends) have been a feature of the Community Services Committee agendas for over a decade.

This data reporting came to a halt in November, 2014 with the introduction of the new OW technology system, SAMS.

For several months data was unreliable and was not in a form or integrity to report to Council or to use for decision making.

In July, 2015 the data system seemed to have stabilized and July, 2015 and August, 2015 saw the resumption of OW caseload reports.

In developing the September, 2015 report (based on case data from August), there arise again concerns about data integrity and staff will continue to work with Provincial officials to best ensure that we are reporting accurate data.

Preliminary Provincial data reflected a surge in OW caseload levels not normally associated with August trends. Staff will want to review and verify data before being presented to District Council.

Page 1




www.muskoka.on.ca


FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no financial implications at this time. COMMUNICATIONS None at this time. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Ontario Works Caseload supports the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 6. Efficiently deliver community and human services with compassion and dignity while



Page 2


FROM: Jeff Yeo Manager, Facilities Services


SUBJECT: Attic Ventilation Improvements – Pinedale Road

REPORT NO: CS-10-2015-8 ____________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the 2015 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast BE AMENDED to include attic ventilation improvements at 815-887 Pinedale Road in Gravenhurst as outlined in the following table:

Project

Approved Budget

2015

Proposed Amendment

Proposed Budget

2015 710033 Attic Ventilation Improvements - Pinedale Road 0 65,000 65,000

Sources of Funding Community Housing Capital Reserve Fund 0 65,000 65,000

ORIGIN

Over the past two winters, the duplex homes on Pinedale Road in Gravenhurst have experienced water infiltration as a result of ice damming. There are seven duplexes (14 units) located at 815 – 887 Pinedale Road Gravenhurst which were constructed in 1970. The extent of interior damage is varied between the units and is being corrected through insurance in extreme cases or through the operating budget for minor repairs.

ANALYSIS

Snow fall accumulations over the past two winters combined with milder temperatures have created ideal conditions for the development of ice dams on low sloped shingle roofing. These ice dams result in ice pushing back up the roof slope under roofing materials and result in water infiltration as temperatures fluctuate above freezing.

Page 1

The duplexes on Pinedale Road have a low slope roof truss (<4/12 pitch) with a low heel making it difficult to ventilate and insulate at the location of the most significant heat loss which is above the perimeter of the exterior wall.

The proposed attic ventilation improvements will involve installing fully vented soffits, additional attic ventilation and the removal of any unnecessary attic penetrations which contribute excess heat into the attic. This work is expected to significantly reduce the attic space temperatures and prevent the development of ice dams.

Without these improvements it is likely that the ice dams will re-occur and cause further water infiltration into the units jeopardizing the health and safety of the tenants and result in additional operational and repair costs.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Current repair cost estimates covered through insurance at two of the units are $23,400 plus applicable tax. Of this $5,000 is the deductible amount which will be paid from the 2015 Community Housing Operating Budget. Damage reported in other units was minor and included in the scope of unit turnover preparations which have happened since the damage occurred at no additional cost.

The following table provides a summary of the proposed capital project budget:

Project Budget Cost Attic Ventilation Improvements 58,000 Contingency 2,400 Capital Coordination Costs 4,600

Total Project Costs 65,000

This project would be financed from the Community Housing Capital Reserve Fund.

COMMUNICATIONS

All tenants will be provided with the appropriate notice in advance of the work. None of the scope of attic ventilation improvement work will require tenants to temporarily vacate their homes and advance notice of the work will help ensure the safe and efficient completion of the work.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

The information in this report supports the following goal and strategy identified in The District Municipality of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

Page 2

7.7 Examine the existing social housing stock and create a long-term capital plan. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Jeff Yeo A.Sc.T. Sharon Donald CPA, CMA Manager, Facilities Services Director of Budgets and Financial Planning

Page 3


FROM: Jackie Mattice Manager, Housing Development


SUBJECT: Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP) Capital Incentive Funding Recommendation – Greg Knight (1006 Clear Lake Rd., Torrance)

REPORT NO: CS-10-2015-9 ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

THAT a municipal housing facilities by-law BE PREPARED for the provision of new rental housing for Greg Knight, located at 1006 Clear Lake Rd., Torrance;

AND THAT the by-law AUTHORIZE FUNDS in the amount of $15,000 for one (1) new rental unit (secondary suite) to be made available to the proponent;

AND THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka BE AUTHORIZED to enter into an agreement for new rental housing with Greg Knight;

AND THAT the terms of the agreement BE SATISFACTORY to the Commissioner of Community Services and the District Solicitor;

AND THAT the District Chair and Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the agreement on behalf of The District Municipality of Muskoka.

ORIGIN

Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP) By-law Nos. 2013-28 and 2013-35 establish the ability to grant capital incentives for the purpose of constructing new affordable housing and create funding with which to do so. This report recommends that Capital Incentive funds be granted to the proponent under this by-law.

ANALYSIS

This application for MAHIP Capital Incentive Funding was submitted by Greg Knight. The project involves the construction of an 864 square foot garage with a 3 bedroom secondary suite above as an accessory unit to the existing residential home. The plan is an attractive

Page 1




www.muskoka.on.ca


design which includes Energy Star rated appliances for the kitchen and laundry. The rent will be set at 10% below the affordable rental rates specified in the MAHIP program details and the Capital Incentive application. The property is located in Torrance and is in compliance with the requirements under the MAHIP framework for this type of construction. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Funds will be allocated from the MAHIP 2015 approved operating budget for Capital Incentive Projects. COMMUNICATIONS Upon passing this by-law, the Clerk of the District of Muskoka shall give written notice of the by-law to the Minister of Education or successor, as set out in the Municipal Act, 2001. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on MAHIP Capital Incentive Funding supports the following goal and strategy as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

7. Develop an affordable housing and homelessness strategy in cooperation with the Area Municipalities. Seek the support of senior level governments for the implementation of the strategy resulting in additional affordable housing units.

7.6 Continue to support the construction of new affordable housing units. Conduct a

complete review of how this is to be accomplished including the potential adoption of an Affordable Housing By-law.

Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Jackie Mattice Rick Williams Manager, Housing Development Commissioner of Community Services

Page 2


FROM: Jackie Mattice Manager, Housing Development


SUBJECT: Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP) Capital Incentive Funding Recommendation – Greg Knight (4651 Southwood Rd., Torrance)

REPORT NO: CS-10-2015-10 ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

THAT a municipal housing facilities by-law BE PREPARED for the provision of new rental housing for Greg Knight, located at 4651 Southwood Rd., Torrance;

AND THAT the by-law AUTHORIZE FUNDS in the amount of $15,000 for one (1) new rental unit to be made available to the proponent;

AND THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka BE AUTHORIZED to enter into an agreement for new rental housing with Greg Knight;

AND THAT the terms of the agreement BE SATISFACTORY to the Commissioner of Community Services and the District Solicitor;

AND THAT the District Chair and Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the agreement on behalf of The District Municipality of Muskoka.

ORIGIN

Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP) By-law Nos. 2013-28 and 2013-35 establish the ability to grant capital incentives for the purpose of constructing new affordable housing and create funding with which to do so. This report recommends that Capital Incentive funds be granted to the proponent under this by-law.

ANALYSIS

This application for MAHIP Capital Incentive Funding was submitted by Greg Knight. The project involves redevelopment of the existing building into a 3 bedroom attainable housing unit, an office and a new 100 seat theatre to house the Actors’ Colony Theatre. The plan is an

Page 1




www.muskoka.on.ca


attractive design on a single level and is fully accessible. The attainable housing unit will have a separate entrance and some private outdoor amenity space. The rent will be set at 10% below the affordable rental rates specified in the MAHIP program details and the Capital Incentive application. The property is located in Torrance and is in compliance with the requirements under the MAHIP framework for this type of construction. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Funds will be allocated from the MAHIP 2015 approved operating budget for Capital Incentive Projects. COMMUNICATIONS Upon passing this by-law, the Clerk of the District of Muskoka shall give written notice of the by-law to the Minister of Education or successor, as set out in the Municipal Act, 2001. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on MAHIP Capital Incentive Funding supports the following goal and strategy as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:




Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Jackie Mattice Rick Williams Manager, Housing Development Commissioner of Community Services

Page 2

TO: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

FROM: Heather Moore Director of Programs, Community Services


SUBJECT: Establishing a Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund

REPORT NO: CES-11-2015-4 ________________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

THAT a by-law BE ESTABLISHED to create a reserve fund to be designated as the Gateway Homes Muskoka Fund (the “Fund”);

AND THAT funds held within the Fund BE USED for the purpose of delivering a charitable sector/municipal government partnership affordable housing program;

AND THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka BE AUTHORIZED to enter into letters of agreement for the management and distribution of the funds with the Toronto United Church Council (TUCC) and Gateway Homes Muskoka as may be required;

AND THAT the terms of the letters of agreement BE SATISFACTORY to the Commissioners of Corporate and Emergency Services and Community Services, and the District Solicitor;

AND THAT the District Chair and Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the letters of agreement on behalf of The District Municipality of Muskoka.

ORIGIN

Through 2013, District Council authorized the creation of the Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP). One component of that program described a potential charitable sector/municipal government partnership, whereby funds donated by a philanthropic community member would be used to create an affordable housing down payment grant program, to be delivered by Community Services staff as part of their larger new affordable housing slate of programs.

ANALYSIS

Several years ago, a generous donation was made to the TUCC and a separate fund was established which is referred to as the TUCC Gateway Homes Muskoka fund. The Gateway Board of Directors explored several program delivery options, and has most recently determined that flowing funds to the District was desirable, in that Community Services staff are already

Page 1

CS-10-2015-Info-A

engaged in successfully delivering a host of federal-provincial and locally funded affordable housing programs. In meetings with TUCC, it has been noted that the funds may only be released to certain organizations, for certain purposes. TUCC has indicated that they are prepared to put the transfer request forward to their Board of Directors with a recommendation that the funds be transferred to the District, if a by-law is prepared to establish the Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund (“Reserve Fund”) that meets the following criteria: • Monies held within the Reserve Fund will be used for the purpose of delivering a

charitable sector/municipal government partnership affordable housing program;

• Interest earned on the Reserve Fund will be at the same rate as other reserves at the District and will be payable to the Reserve Fund;

• Disbursements from the Reserve Fund will be initiated through recommendations from

the Gateway Homes Muskoka Advisory Committee, to The District Municipality of Muskoka Community Services Committee;

• Disbursements be used to increase affordable home ownership across the District of

Muskoka through initiatives Council may authorize from time to time, in accordance with the Advisory Committee, including program delivery costs;

• Additional charitable donations that may be forthcoming from other sources may be

accepted and deposited into the Reserve Fund. As noted above, it is anticipated that the Gateway Homes Muskoka Advisory Committee would make recommendations regarding annual allocations, program design, eligibility criteria, etc. to the Community Services Committee and subsequently to District Council, in a manner similar to the process already in place for the Pines Support Committee. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS At present, it is estimated that approximately $1.5 million resides in the TUCC fund. There is no impact to the net levy. Administrative costs incurred due to program delivery will be withdrawn from the Reserve Fund, as well as funds flowed directly to eligible program recipients, in accordance with the established by-law. COMMUNICATIONS This report will be forwarded to TUCC to provide background to their report to the TUCC Board of Directors, to Gateway Homes Muskoka and to the District of Muskoka Community Services Committee. Once specific programs are established, they will be publicly promoted. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Gateway Homes Muskoka Fund supports the following goal and strategy as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

Page 2

CS-10-2015-Info-A




Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Heather Moore Director of Programs, Community Services Original signed by Original signed by Julie Stevens Rick Williams Commissioner of Corporate Commissioner of Community Services and Emergency Services

Page 3

CS-10-2015-Info-A

CS-10-2015-Info-B

Page 1

LEADERSHIP ON MEMBER ISSUES

• Strong representation at the provincial LQIP Advisory raising member concerns, including changes to inspection reports and access to provincial data, among other items.

• Working with government and sector organizations on provincial health care system planning initiatives .

• Recommended that the MOHLTC look at issues with respect to the sole and transfer of NFP LTC bed licenses to ensure that the beds remain in the NFP sector.

OANHSS I 2014 ANNUAL REPORT -

CHAMPIONING THE NEED FOR CAPACITY PLANNING Right now, 77,500 people receive core in a LTC home, and 22,000 people are on the waitlist. If there is no change to current capacity, the woitlist will more than double to 48,000 over the next seven years.

Even if efforts over that period are successful in diverting 50% of those on the waitlist for a LTC bed to the brooder community, there will still be nearly 24,000 people on the remaining woitlist.

OANHSS has long championed the need for the provincial government to launch and complete a comprehensive capacity planning exercise, encompassing the entire seniors' care continuum, in close and effective collaboration with OANHSS and other stakeholders . We are pleased to see discussions starting to happen , and we will continue to push for on informed , integrated, system-wide strategy to meet the needs of Ontario's seniors.

Planning is underway for an OANHSS-led capacity planning summit in late 2015.


PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

MEETING NO. PED-11-2015

MINUTES PLACE: Council Chamber, District Administration Building TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: September 24, 2015 PRESENT: Committee Chair P. Wiancko; Members N. Alcock, A. Edwards,

L. Giaschi-Pacini, P. Kelly, B. Young ABSENT: District Chair J. Klinck OFFICIALS PRESENT: M. Duben, Chief Administrative Officer; S. Hastings,

Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development; F. Jahn, Commissioner of Engineering and Public Works

ALSO PRESENT: C. Doyle, Director of Watershed Programs; S. Valentine, Director

of Planning Services; M. Stirling, Airport Manager; L. Marden, Planner; S. Paul, GIS Technician, D. Hammond, Director, Continuous Improvement Unit; M. Ross, Communications Officer; A. Back, Deputy Clerk

CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Wiancko called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS None were declared. ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS a) Subdivision File No. S2015-2 – Background for a Public Meeting

(Loon Call Communities Inc. – Town of Bracebridge) Report No. PED-11-2015-3 Ms. Marden provided a digital presentation which highlighted the Subdivision application. To access Ms. Marden’s presentation, please click on the following link: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=26789

Ms. Marden left the meeting at 9:04 a.m.


b) Update on the Delegation of Subdivision, Condominium and Part Lot Control Approval Report No. PED-11-2015-4 Mr. Hammond highlighted his report. A discussion occurred regarding the revocation provisions included in the draft Memorandums of Understanding (MOU). Staff confirmed that the revocation provision is carried forward from the Planning Act, and reflects the District’s ongoing responsibility for subdivision and condominium approvals, notwithstanding delegation. A brief discussion was also held about the value of continuing with delegation in the absence of any documented efficiencies.

Mr. Hammond left the meeting at 9:14 a.m.

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS a) Implications for the Planning and Development Processes from Guideline D-4:

Land Use on or Near Landfills and Dumps Report No. PED-11-2015-5 Ms. Valentine highlighted her report and outlined the financial impacts of the guideline to municipalities, developers, and private landowners.

b) Technical Reviews – Sole Provider Agreements Report No. PED-11-2015-6

Moved by B. Young and seconded by L. Giaschi-Pacini R42/2015-PED

THAT the existing sole source provider agreements for municipal review services of technical studies submitted in support of development applications NOT BE EXTENDED.

Carried. c) Invasive Species - Phragmites

Report No. PED-11-2015-7 Ms. Doyle highlighted her report and, at the request of the Committee Chair, confirmed that Phragmites would be discussed at an upcoming Muskoka Watershed Council meeting. Mr. Paul demonstrated the free ‘Phragspotter’ app which can be used to collect and track the location of Phragmites. It was confirmed that Ms. Doyle’s presentation would be distributed to all members of Council. To access a copy of Ms. Doyle’s presentation, please click on the following link: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=26792

The Committee reconvened at 10:30 a.m. following a brief recess. MUSKOKA AIRPORT a) Review of Muskoka Airport Lease Rates and User Fees

Report No. PED-11-2015-8 A decision on the matter was deferred to the October Committee meeting in order for staff to come back to Committee with a phased-in approach with respect to the proposed or recommended fee increase.

b) Muskoka Airport – Runway Rehabilitation Project – Verbal Update Mr. Stirling advised of the successful rehabilitation of the airport runway, currently underway. Ms. Hastings noted that the project had been a great example of collaboration and teamwork between the Planning and Public Works departments along with C.C. Tatham (the consultant) and Fowler Construction (the contractor).

FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS a) Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – June 30, 2015

Report No. PED-11-2015-1

Moved by P. Kelly and seconded by L. Giaschi-Pacini R43/2015-PED

THAT the Capital Project Quarterly Report – June 30, 2015, as summarized in Schedule A to Report No. PED-11-2015-1, BE RECEIVED.

Carried. b) Planning and Economic Development Department Operating Budget Variance

Report – June 30, 2015 Report No. PED-11-2015-2 In response to a question regarding purchased services, Ms. Hastings confirmed that she would request that the finance department break out the airport costs separately.

Moved by P. Kelly and seconded by B. Young R44/2015-PED

THAT the Planning and Economic Development Department Operating Budget Variance Report as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED.

Carried. INFORMATION ITEMS a) Ministry of Transport provided a letter regarding funding for the rehabilitation of the runway at Muskoka Airport on July 22, 2015

PED-11-2015-Info-A

b) New Plans of Subdivision/Condominium Description Files

i. Standard Condominium Description File No. C2015-5, “Lakeside Lodge”, located in the Town of Huntsville, was submitted on June 24, 2015 and deemed complete on July 24, 2015.

c) Delegated Staff Approval

i. Phased Condominium Description File No.C2014-5, “Idylwild Shores Cottage Resort”, located in the Town of Gravenhurst, was granted Draft Approval on July 15, 2015.

ii. Standard Condominium Description File No. C2015-1, “Edgewater

Condominiums”, located in the Township of Muskoka Lakes, was granted Draft Approval on July 27, 2015.

iii. Lifting of Part Lot Control By-law 2015-035, “Waterways of Muskoka”, located in

the Town of Bracebridge, was approved on July 31, 2015.

d) Extensions to Draft Approval

i. Vacant Land Condominium Description File No. C2010-1, “Inveraray Glen”, located in the Town of Bracebridge, was granted a two-year extension to July 24, 2017.

ii. Plan of Subdivision File No. 44T-95003, “Lake of Bays Development

Corporation”, located in the Town of Huntsville, was granted a two-year extension to July 31, 2017.

iii. Standard Condominium Description File No. C2005-4, “Moonlight Bay

Condominiums”, located in the Town of Gravenhurst, was granted a two-year extension to July 31, 2017.

e) Staff Delegated Amendments

i. Standard Condominium Description File No. C2005-4, “Moonlight Bay Condominiums”, located in the Town of Gravenhurst, was amended by authorization on July 29, 2015.

ii. Plan of Subdivision File No. 44T-95003, “Lake of Bays Development

Corporation”, located in the Town of Huntsville, was amended by authorization on July 31, 2015.

iii. Plan of Subdivision File No. 44T-89002, “Clearbrook”, located in the Town of

Bracebridge, was amended by authorization on September 9, 2015.

f) Final Approved and Registered Plans

i. Vacant Land Condominium File No. C2011-3, “Gryffin Bluff”, located in the Town of Huntsville, was granted final approval on July 29, 2015 and was registered as Muskoka Vacant Land Condominium Plan No. 81 on August 6, 2015.

g) Closing of Plans of Subdivision/Condominium Description Files

i. At the owner’s request, Subdivision File No. S2001-3, “Muskoka Commerce Park”, located in the Town of Huntsville, was closed on June 15, 2015.

ADJOURNMENT

Moved by L. Giaschi-Pacini and seconded by P. Kelly P45/2015-PED

THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee adjourns to meet again on Thursday, October 22, 2015 or at the call of the Chair.

Carried.

The meeting adjourned at 11:27 a.m. _____________________ Deputy Clerk

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee

FROM: Lisa Marden Planner


SUBJECT: Subdivision File No. S2015-2 – Background for a Public Meeting (Loon Call Communities Inc. - Town of Bracebridge)

REPORT NO: PED-11-2015-3 ____________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION


ORIGIN

An application for the above noted subdivision file was received on March 25, 2015 and accepted as a complete application on May 4, 2015. The following background material has been prepared in order to provide Committee with a general overview of the proposed draft plan of subdivision prior to the concurrent public meeting which is to be scheduled in the near future at the Town of Bracebridge Municipal Office.

ANALYSIS

Location and Description

The lands subject to this application are 2.5 hectares (6.18 acres) in area and are located west of the Bracebridge Sportsplex and Bracebridge and Muskoka Lakes Secondary School, near the northern limit of the Town of Bracebridge Urban Centre boundary. The lands are legally described as Part of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Concession 4, former Township of Macaulay, in the Town of Bracebridge. A location map is attached as Appendix “I”.

The subject lands are also known as Block ‘M’ on Plan of Subdivision File No. 44T-89002 (Clearbrook), which was final approved as part of Phase 6 on April 4, 2008 and was registered as Block 56, Plan 35M-719 on April 10, 2008. This block was originally intended to be a future multiple residential block in order to incorporate an area of higher density into a development that primarily consists of single detached residences. The original property owners, Clearbrook Building Corporation (Mattamy Homes), have now sold the block to the applicant (formal

confirmation pending), Loon Call Communities Inc., who have submitted this application for consideration. The proposed draft plan of subdivision is to be developed with similar intent as the original plan for higher density and multiple residential development. Proposal This application proposes to create 23 lots for single detached residences and 30 lots for semi-detached residences, for a total of 53 residential lots. All proposed lots will be accessed from an internal public road network that would connect to Douglas Drive and are to be serviced by municipal water and sewer services. A copy of the proposed draft plan of subdivision is attached as Appendix “II”. Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Uses The subject lands are currently vacant. The lands have been previously graded and are relatively flat and sparsely vegetated. Two drainage features exist on the property; a small tributary of the north branch of the Muskoka River and a small grassed swale which conveys local drainage from an adjacent property. Both flow westerly through the southwest corner of the subject lands. The property is surrounded by single detached residential dwellings of varying densities, as well as a parcel of Town of Bracebridge owned parkland immediately to the southeast. Bracebridge and Muskoka Lakes Secondary School and the Bracebridge Sportsplex are also located to the east of the subject lands on Clearbrook Trail. Supporting Documentation A functional servicing report prepared by Pinestone Engineering Ltd., dated March 11, 2015 was submitted in support of the application. The report documents the existing site conditions, topography, vegetation, and drainage and outlines the municipal water and sewer services for the draft plan of subdivision, as well as the applicable stormwater management criteria and proposed design. Drainage on the site currently flows in the form of overland sheet flow towards the south, entering the tributary of the north branch of the Muskoka River. The existing storm sewer system along Fieldstream Chase is proposed to be extended along the proposed internal public road and a curb and gutter system will direct drainage to a series of catchbasins. Drainage collected on the individual lots will be conveyed to the storm sewer system using grassed swales. All drainage will ultimately be transported into the previously constructed stormwater management facilities downstream in the adjacent Clearbrook plan of subdivision. Currently, water, stormwater, and sewage services extend into the subject lands approximately 40 metres (131 feet) from Fieldstream Chase. As the subject block was originally intended to be a multiple residential block in the Clearbrook plan of subdivision, the existing infrastructure has been adequately sized to accommodate the proposed development. The functional servicing report has been circulated to the District of Muskoka’s Engineering and Public Works Department and the Town of Bracebridge for review and comment. A memorandum prepared by Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited, dated March 11, 2015, was also submitted in support of the application. This memorandum contains comments on the existing drainage features and potential habitat of species at risk within and adjacent to the

subject lands. The memorandum was submitted as an update to the originally completed natural heritage studies submitted in support of the Clearbrook plan of subdivision and identifies two drainage features which flow through or adjacent to the subject lands. The more significant feature of the two is an intermittent tributary of the north branch of the Muskoka River and the second drainage feature is a small swale which conveys localized drainage. Setbacks, natural buffers, and construction mitigation measures are recommended for these features to maintain a similar or more protective standard on the subject block than previously proposed through the Clearbrook plan of subdivision draft approval. The potential for the existence of species at risk habitat was also reviewed and the report concluded that due to the small size and previous grading of the subject property, limited habitat opportunities exist and it is unlikely that its development would contravene the Endangered Species Act. The memorandum has been circulated to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) for their review and comment. Planning Documents The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) would apply to this proposal. The PPS promotes land use patterns within settlement areas that make efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public services. The proposed draft plan of subdivision is located within the “Urban Centre” designation of the Muskoka Official Plan and is designated “Residential” within the Town of Bracebridge Official Plan. Urban Centres are envisioned to be the focus of growth, contain a broad, diverse range of housing types and tenure, with development occurring on municipal water and sewer services. A preliminary review has been completed and it would appear that the proposal is generally consistent with and conforms to these and other relevant policies contained within these documents. A further detailed review of these policies will be completed as the planning process proceeds. Circulation and Notice In addition to the plan of subdivision application submitted to the District of Muskoka, an application is anticipated to be submitted to the Town of Bracebridge to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-law in the near future. Once a Zoning By-law Amendment Application has been received and deemed complete by the Town of Bracebridge, a concurrent public meeting will be scheduled and notice will be circulated to required agencies and all property owners within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject lands. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS No impacts on the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this report. COMMUNICATIONS Notice of Application was circulated to required agencies and all property owners in accordance with the Planning Act, R.S.0., 1990, as amended. The consultation process will involve ongoing

communication with adjacent ratepayers, the area municipality and other relevant agencies, and internal departments. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The consideration of the proposed draft plan of subdivision supports the following goal (in part) as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 1. Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental,

economic, social and cultural elements…. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Lisa Marden Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Planner Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development S:\DEVELOPMENT\Sub Condo\2015\S2015-2 – Loon Call Communities Inc. (Clearbrook)\(5) Internal Reports (Draft Approval)\Loon Call Communities – Information Report.

APPENDIX “I”

APPENDIX “II”

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Derrick Hammond

Director, Continuous Improvement Unit DATE: September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Update on the Delegation of Subdivision, Condominium and Part Lot

Control Approval REPORT NO: PED-11-2015-4 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION This report is provided for information. ORIGIN Committee had previously requested that staff provide ongoing progress updates respecting the delegation of Subdivision, Condominium, and Part Lot Control approvals to the Area Municipalities.

ANALYSIS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) The second draft of the MOU was sent to the Area Planners. Follow up telephone conversations with each of them reconfirmed our understanding that they had no fundamental issues with the first draft and that the changes included in the second draft were only necessary to fine tune the document. Timing These recent discussions with the Area Planners confirmed that the Area Planners anticipate reviewing the MOU with their respective Councils later this fall. Once Council resolutions are passed to endorse the execution of the MOU, Area Municipal staff would move forward with the administrative components necessary for the subdivision, and condominium processes. This means that the Area Municipalities would likely be in a position to accept delegation in 2016. It is still our understanding that the Town of Bracebridge Council has not yet confirmed its desire to accept delegation of these approvals and have requested additional financial analysis from their staff.

Given that the timing to accept delegation may vary amongst the Area Municipalities, it would appear that at some level, the District will likely still be responsible for processing subdivision and condominium applications in 2016. As a result, changes to By-law 2009-19 (Prescribe forms and require consultation and complete applications for certain Planning Act and Condominium Act, 1998 applications – Amended by By-law 2012-36) and By-law 2013-7 (To prescribe fees for various Planning Act and Condominium Act, 1998 applications) would not appear to be warranted at this time. However, By-law 2008-22 (Update certain delegation By-laws) should be amended or replaced at the time the first Area Municipality is delegated approval authority. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS As the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget already included a reduction in revenues in subdivision and condominium application fees, no further adjustments are required at this time. COMMUNICATIONS Consultation with the Area Municipalities will be on-going. Upon the approval of delegation By-laws and the determination of an effective date, additional notifications to the development community will be required. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Strategic Priority Goal No. 1 focuses on the need to manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental, economic, social and cultural elements. Recognize that in Muskoka a healthy and vibrant economy depends upon wise stewardship of the environment. This strategic priority continues to be a focus when considering all aspects of delegation of approval authority. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Derrick Hammond, MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Director, Continuous Improvement Unit Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development S:\Y:\GENERAL\Service Review\Strategy Corp Recommendations\MP 2 Delegation\Committee Reports\PED-Subcondo Delegation September 24 2015.Doc

https://muskoka.civicweb.net:/document/4737/2008-22%20-%20update%20certain%20delegation%20by-laws%20(Planning%20Act,%20Condominium%20Act,%201998).pdf

https://muskoka.civicweb.net:/document/6324/2009-19%20-%20prescribe%20forms%20and%20require%20consultation%20and%20complete%20applications%20for%20certain%20Planning%20Act%20and%20condominium%20Act,%201998%20applications%20-%20Amended%20by%202012-36.pdf

https://muskoka.civicweb.net:/document/19500/2012-36%20-%20to%20amend%20by-law%202009-19%20(a%20by-law%20to%20prescribe%20forms%20and%20require%20consultation%20and%20complete%20applications%20for%20certain%20Planning%20Act,%20Condominium%20Act,%201998%20applications).pdf

https://muskoka.civicweb.net:/document/20954/2013-7%20-%20to%20prescribe%20fees%20for%20various%20Planning%20Act%20and%20Condominium%20Act,%201998%20applications.pdf

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Summer Valentine

Director of Planning DATE: September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Implications for the Planning and Development Processes from Guideline D-4: Land Use on or Near Landfills and Dumps REPORT NO: PED-11-2015-5 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION This report is provided for information.

ORIGIN On July 20, 2015, a representative from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) provided a presentation to Muskoka District Council that addressed the history, context and requirements of Provincial Guideline D-4: Land Use on or Near Landfills and Dumps (D-4 Guidelines). This report is intended as a follow-up to that presentation and to provide additional information on potential implications for the planning and development processes. Background and existing policies are outlined in Council Report No. 11(2015)-2. ANALYSIS The MOECC attended a recent District Council meeting to address a variety of questions on the implementation of the D-4 Guidelines and associated Muskoka Official Plan (MOP) policies through the planning and development processes. The presentation provided a high-level overview of the roles, responsibilities, best practices, and potential liabilities related to development on or adjacent to waste disposal sites. It was quite clear from the MOECC discussion that the D-4 Guidelines reflect the provincial interest in waste management and human health and safety as outlined in the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement. The guidelines are intended to be implemented through the planning and development processes and liability can exist for both regional and area municipal governments if the guidelines are not followed. In addition, the guidelines were developed to be proponent-driven, with the costs of site assessments, peer reviews, and other documentation being the responsibility of applicants. This report is intended to provide clarification and

https://muskoka.civicweb.net:/document/26354/Report%20No.%2011(2015)-2%20-%20Implementation%20of%20Guidline%20D4%20-%20Land%20Use%20on%20or%20Near%20Landfills%20and%20Dumps.pdf

additional information on these matters and other potential implications of the D-4 Guidelines on the planning and development processes. Cost and Scope of Assessments Council expressed some concern regarding the financial burden that the implementation of the D-4 Guidelines may be placing on the developers and proponents, particularly on applicants wishing to make small changes to their properties (e.g. an addition to an existing house, a new detached garage, outdoor storage, etc.). The MOECC presentation indicated that almost any land use change or development proposed within the potential influence area of a waste disposal site would require a site assessment to demonstrate that there would be no negative impacts from the adjacent facility on the proposed development. Perhaps less clear was the variability in the scope and cost of these site assessments and the situations where the need for an assessment could be waived entirely. In determining scope and cost, there are many factors that would need to be considered. These include the scale of development proposed, nature of the proposed use, status of the waste disposal site (e.g. operating, non-operating, formally closed, abandoned, etc.), type of waste buried (e.g. stumps, household garbage, industrial waste, etc.), distance from the waste disposal site, topography, ground and surface water flows, soil depth, surrounding uses, time since closure of the facility, proposed source of drinking water (e.g. municipal, surface, or ground water), existing or potential mitigation measures, etc. Each of these factors would be assessed by a qualified professional and the likelihood of potential impacts would then be evaluated. For example, the scope of a site assessment addressing each of the following situations would be quite different:

A proposed addition to an existing commercial structure on a developed lot within an urban setting, connected to municipal water services and with a road and intervening properties between the waste disposal site and the subject property; and

A brand new, multiple lot residential subdivision proposed directly abutting a non-operating landfill with suspected leachate/gas issues.

The former scenario may simply require a letter from a qualified professional outlining how the combination of factors virtually eliminates the likelihood of any impacts on the proposal and the latter scenario may require a year-long study with test holes and monitoring for gases and leachate. Naturally, the complexity of the site assessment would be reflected in the cost and time required to complete the study. District staff have seen examples of each of the above scenarios, with the site assessments costing approximately $4,000 and $16,000 respectively. In general, discussions with the MOECC, neighbouring municipalities, and local engineering firms have indicated that site assessment costs could vary from around $1,500 to $20,000 or more, depending on the specifics of the development proposal and site circumstances. Peer reviews of these assessments would generally fall within the $1,000 to $5,000 range. In rare cases, applications may arise within a potential influence area of a waste disposal site where the MOECC or a qualified professional provides an opinion that would support waiving the requirement for a site assessment. In Muskoka, these instances have typically involved a change of use that does not result in any alteration to the physical development of a property

(e.g. no new structures or wells), construction of non-enclosed structures like decks or docks, new information supporting a change in the extent of the potential influence area, or, in cases where only part of a property is affected, a yard setback being imposed to ensure that any new development would occur outside of the potential influence area. Municipal Responsibilities and Liability Council also asked several questions about liability and the probability of impacts from adjacent waste disposal sites on proposed development, which was presumed to be low given the lack of past incidences. The MOECC indicated that in the vast majority of cases, potential impacts are non-existent, negligible or can be mitigated, but without an assessment of each development proposal by a qualified professional, there is no way to predict the few cases where the risk to human health and safety could be serious (i.e. explosion or exposure to toxins). To mitigate liability and protect health and safety, a site assessment and peer review is required when the District is the approval authority for any application (i.e. official plan amendments, subdivisions and condominiums) that falls within a potential influence area of a waste disposal site. As a commenting agency for other types of development applications (i.e. consents or zoning by-law amendments), District staff also routinely recommend that site assessments be required by the Area Municipalities. However, where the Area Municipality is the approval authority, it is the decision of each municipality to either require a site assessment and/or a peer review or to accept any liability in waiving the requirement for a study. This becomes particularly difficult in cases where development can proceed without the need for a planning application. The MOECC explained that development only requiring the issuance of a building permit to proceed does not exempt a municipality from potential liability should there be impacts for an adjacent waste disposal site. However, there has been considerable discussion regarding if or how it is legally possible to require a site assessment outside of the planning process under the Building Code and Building Code Act. While each Area Municipality will likely weigh their options in this regard, the long-term solution preferred by the MOECC and implemented in some neighbouring jurisdictions is to place holding zones on lands within the potential influence areas of waste disposal sites. This would ensure that a building permit could not be issued in the absence of a planning process. Through the planning process, the site assessment could be required as supporting documentation, as intended through the D-4 Guidelines. Implementation of holding zones is through the comprehensive zoning by-law and would be the responsibility of each Area Municipal Council. Other Options One option that may reduce the need for applicants to undertake site specific amendments and reduce the potential costs borne by proponents would involve municipally initiated comprehensive assessments of the District-owned sites located in areas of higher development pressure (i.e. within Urban Centres and Communities) or sites with known or suspected contamination issues could be conducted. The goal of such studies and any associated mitigation works would be to minimize the potential influence area of certain District-owned waste disposal sites, ultimately to coincide with the property boundary if possible (i.e. no potential for off-site impacts).

While this process would likely take several years and substantial resources to complete, it would not guarantee that municipal liability and developer costs would be completely eliminated. The process may only limit the number of properties that fall within potential influence areas, minimize the scope of future site assessments, or transfer the bulk of the liability to the District. In addition, this process would not reduce the potential influence areas around non-municipally owned waste disposal sites where the District lacks jurisdiction to assess the sites or surrounding lands without permission from the affected landowners.


There are no direct impacts on the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast anticipated as a result of this report. However, should Council wish to explore municipally initiated assessments on a more comprehensive basis, this would likely be at significant cost to the District.

COMMUNICATIONS

The MOECC has established a one-window contact point for all inquiries related to the D-4 Guidelines from municipalities and proponents within the District of Muskoka. MOECC staff have also offered to attend Area Municipal Council meetings upon request. Two meetings with Area Municipal planning staff have been held and mapping has been provided. It is anticipated that District Planning and Engineering and Public Works staff will continue to work together to continue regular contact with the Area Municipalities.

The development community is being advised of this matter during pre-consultations for new applications, through commenting on development proposals, and, in the case of existing subdivision and condominium draft approvals, through the amendment and/or extension process. Further efforts to communicate with the public may be required through the Official Plan Review. In addition and if permitted by the MOECC, existing mapping of potential influence areas could be made publicly available.


Reporting on the implications on the planning and development processes from Guideline D-4: Land Use on or Near Landfills and Dumps addresses, the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

1.1 Through leading by example, be recognized as a model municipality for the implementation of environmentally sustainable policies and practices. Continue to examine new technologies for their appropriateness in Muskoka.

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Summer Valentine, BSc, MPL, MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Commissioner of Planning

and Economic Development

S:\POLICY\Projects&Programs\Waste Management\2015\PEDC\PED Committee Report Implications For Development - D4 Guidelines FINAL.Doc

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Summer Valentine

Director of Planning DATE: September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Technical Reviews – Sole Provider Agreements REPORT NO: PED-11-2015-6 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the existing sole source provider agreements for municipal review services of technical studies submitted in support of development applications NOT BE EXTENDED. ORIGIN In 2012, the District of Muskoka changed its approach to the peer review of technical studies submitted in support of development applications to an ongoing sole provider municipal review service. The agreements engaging these providers have now expired and a decision on how to proceed is required. ANALYSIS Background The Muskoka Official Plan enables staff to request peer reviews of technical studies submitted in support of development applications requiring the approval of the District of Muskoka. Peer reviews must be undertaken by a third party professional consultant where in-house expertise is not available and where considered appropriate given the nature of the development proposed. This process is a standard practice that is intended to ensure an independent assessment of technical reports, which increases transparency in the planning process and is a general expectation of the Ontario Municipal Board and the public. In 2012, the District transitioned to a sole source provider approach for the review of technical reports in order to streamline and standardize the process, increase consistency, and reduce costs and completion timeframes. The three firms (one for acoustic assessments, one for geotechnical and flooding assessments, and one for biological and environmental assessments) selected by the Planning and Economic Development Committee to be the sole providers of municipal peer review services were engaged through the execution of agreements. These

agreements have now expired. However, there is an option to extend the agreements for a period of no longer than two years. Recommended Approach Since the agreements were executed in 2012, there have been four technical reviews undertaken using the sole source provider framework, with another review in progress. The majority of the technical reviews have been for environmental impact studies (EISs). In the case of the EISs, the sole source provider approach does not appear to have saved cost or time. However, given the complex relationship between development proposals and potential environmental impacts (i.e. many site specific variables including the scale and type of development, the size of the property, the nature of the existing environmental features and functions, etc.), it is difficult to quantify whether the costs and timing of the technical reviews are related exclusively to the sole source provider process or to a combination of factors. What is more likely is that the lack of a competitive process may have increased the costs borne by proponents and constrained the options to match the most appropriate firm with any given project. While there may be benefits to the sole source provider approach, particularly the standardization possible with a single firm using a consistent methodology and having defined technical abilities, drawbacks related to cost and lack of understanding of the Muskoka or site specific contexts by the sole source providers also exist. With this in mind and given the impending delegation of subdivision, condominium, and part lot control approvals to the Area Municipalities, it would not appear prudent to extend the existing agreements. Until delegation is completed and for local or District official plan amendment applications, it is recommended that any peer reviews required for technical studies be initiated through a competitive bidding process. This approach was used prior to the adoption of the sole source provider framework and involves the distribution of a request for quotation to several qualified firms and the selection of a proposal that best matches the project requirements in consultation with the applicant. A standardized checklist has been created for the scope of EISs to assist in improving standardization and consistency of review. Existing Policy Section K.13 of the Muskoka Official Plan (MOP) indicates that where appropriate technical expertise is required to review a technical report submitted in support of a development application, the District shall require a peer review to be conducted by a professional consultant retained by the District at the applicant’s expense. The MOP states that, where appropriate, the District may, at its discretion, permit the required studies to be completed in a municipally directed fashion and in such cases, the District would retain a consultant and direct the study at the applicant’s expense. MOP policy requires that all reports, whether peer reviews or municipally directed, shall be conducted by qualified professional consultants in accordance with District policy and guidelines and in consultation with District staff. The content and scope of any required report or peer review is dependent on the scale and scope of the proposal, its relationship to adjacent uses, and the type of planning approval required.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS No impacts on the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this report. COMMUNICATIONS Area Municipal staff were contacted in advance of drafting this report to determine if any municipality had engaged the same firms as sole providers of municipal review services, as this was established as an option in 2012 when the District adopted the approach. None of the Area Municipalities have proceeded with sole provider services and they generally concurred with the benefits of changing the approach at the District level with impending delegation of approvals. Should the recommendation in this report be endorsed by Committee and Council, the three sole source providers of technical reviews would be notified that the agreements are not going to be extended. During pre-consultations related to development applications, proponents will continue to be informed as to when peer reviews are required and the process in place for obtaining a suitable professional consultant. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the sole source provider agreements for technical reviews supports the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 1. Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental,

economic, social and cultural elements. Recognize that in Muskoka, a healthy and vibrant economy depends upon wise stewardship of the environment. Build on the cultural heritage of Muskoka and demonstrate municipal leadership in environmentally sustainable policies, programs and practices.

Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Summer Valentine, BSc, MPL, MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development S:\MANAGEMENT\Finance\Project Budgets\Development Services\Peer Review Services - RFP\PEDC\PEDC Report Lapsing Of Agreements - September 2015.Doc

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Christy Doyle Director of Environmental and Watershed Programs DATE: September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Invasive Species - Phragmites REPORT NO: PED-11-2015-7 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION This report is provided for information. ORIGIN Following a July 2015 presentation made by the Georgian Bay Association to the District of Muskoka’s Engineering and Public Works Committee, some councillors have expressed interest in the investigation of occurrences and spread of Phragmites in Muskoka, particularly along District roads. BACKGROUND Invasive Species Invasive species are plants, animals (both aquatic and terrestrial) and micro-organisms that out-compete native species when introduced outside of their natural environment and threaten local ecosystems, and, in turn, the local economy and community. In the absence of natural predators, non-native species can flourish and become invasive, eliminating native species populations, making species-at-risk even more vulnerable, and diminishing the local biodiversity. According to Environment Canada, there are hundreds of invasive species across the country. In Muskoka, there are increasing opportunities for invasive species to thrive as people bring boats, vehicles, and plants into the area from other parts of the country or the world, and also as the area’s natural habitat is reduced to accommodate development for a growing population. Muskoka is now home to many invasive species including Japanese Knotweed, Asian Longhorned Beetle and the Spiny Waterflea, while Emerald Ash Borer is at the doorstep.

Phragmites Phragmites australis is a tall, warm-season, perennial, sod-forming grass usually found in wetlands. One type of Phragmites is native to North America and another is native to Europe and Asia. The relatively recent increase in non-native Phragmites populations across North America – including in parts of Muskoka, most particularly in the disturbed, coastal areas of the Township of Georgian Bay - is likely due to the aggressive Eurasian form, which arrived in North America through ship ballast water. Phragmites has caused severe damage to wetlands and waterfronts across Canada. As with most other invasive species, once Phragmites has established itself, it is extremely difficult and costly to control or eradicate and ecological effects are often irreversible. Context There are 730 kilometres of roads within the District of Muskoka. Area municipalities are responsible for patrolling on District Roads (with the exception of Huntsville and 100-series highways). Public Works confirms that no threats to District road integrity or road safety hazards due to Phragmites have yet been identified, although the nearby Township of Tiny has noted tall Phragmites blocking sight lines and, in turn, creating safety hazards to motorists and pedestrians. Tiny is now managing the species through regular application of herbicide. Other Ontario municipalities (including the City of London and the City of Hamilton) have also reported evidence of blocked sight lines due to Phragmites. When established along lake or river shorelines, invasive Phragmites can negatively affect agriculture, lower property values, and impact recreational activities such as swimming, boating, and angling in addition to impacting the local biodiversity. ANALYSIS Existing Approaches and Partnerships Federally, an “Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Canada” was developed and approved by all levels of government in September, 2004; however, the Strategy has not been implemented or updated since that time. In June 2006, the Federal Government announced regulations under the Canada Shipping Act to reduce the introduction of aquatic invasive species and pathogens into Canadian waters through ship ballast water discharge. Although this was a good first step, the regulation does not address ships entering the Great Lakes with no ballast on board or provide enforceable deadlines for treatment standards. In January 2007, District staff brought forward a report on Great Lakes Invasive Species (PED-2-2007-5) which outlined the introduction of invasive species through ship ballast water. Muskoka District Council passed Resolution No. 8/2007 requesting improved federal legislation and regulation for the handling of ballast and bilge water in ocean going vessels (attached as Appendix “I”). However, no action to address this matter has been undertaken by the Federal Government. In March 2010, Muskoka Watershed Council (MWC) issued its Position Paper on Aquatic Invasive Species in Muskoka, which outlines the importance of stewardship and public education activities to manage the spread of all invasive species. MWC has since held several lectures and workshops and also produced material to generate invasive species awareness.

https://muskoka.civicweb.net:/document/2109/REPORT%20NO.%20PED-2-2007-5.pdf

https://muskoka.civicweb.net:/document/2109/REPORT%20NO.%20PED-2-2007-5.pdf

In November 2014, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) reintroduced its proposed Invasive Species Act to support the prevention, early detection, rapid response and eradication of invasive species in Ontario. This proposed Act is now in its second reading and District staff continues to monitor its progress. If passed, the legislation would position Ontario as the first and only jurisdiction in Canada to introduce standalone invasive species legislation.

Though no new obligations would be imposed on municipalities through the passing of this Act the proposed legislation would:

Give Ontario the tools to ban activities such as possessing and transporting certain invasive species;

Allow the Province to intervene and enable rapid response actions; and Help ensure compliance through inspection and enforcement measures.

Other existing approaches include MNRF’s 2011 Best Management Practices for Invasive Phragmites and MNRF’s reporting system through its “Invading Species Awareness Program”, a partnership between the Province, OIPC, and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Organizations addressing the specific spread of non-native Phragmites include the Great Lakes Phragmites Collaboration, and Ontario’s Invasive Plant Council (OIPC)’s Phragmites Working Group. Many Georgian Bay marinas, given their typical locations in low-lying areas, are also monitoring the spread of Phragmites and seeking appropriate control options. More generally, several local organizations including MWC, the Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve, Muskoka Conservancy, and many area lake associations are promoting awareness, best management practices and education activities related to invasive species. Next Steps Some councillors have expressed interest in documenting occurrences of non-native Phragmites, in particular along District roads, in order to determine the extent of the issue in Muskoka and to develop an action plan. To investigate and appropriately address Phragmites, and given the extent of organizations and initiatives already seeking to manage invasive species, a coordinated approach is recommended. District’s Planning and Public Works staff, together with Area Municipality staff, MNRF representatives, and members of relevant community organizations and lake associations could collectively document occurrences of Phragmites and potentially other invasive species. Together, and building on work already being done by each stakeholder, a common identification and reporting system and related area mapping program could be developed. Once local knowledge is established, potential control options (such as possible protocols for moving construction equipment around Muskoka or biological removal programs) and appropriate next steps (e.g. targeted awareness programs) may be necessary. Associated funding, if required, may be sought through future budget processes. Any effective action plan will require support from all levels of government and the community-at-large. Having all potential partners engaged to collectively consider the extent of the issue and develop local solutions together may be the most practical approach. If there is an immediate interest in undertaking an inventory of non-native Phragmites along District roads, this work would have to be contracted out as staff resources are not currently available to undertake this work. Staff has obtained a preliminary estimate from a local contractor. An initial estimate of $40,000 has been provided, based on labour and equipment

(vehicle) to survey and record, using a GPS, the locations of Phragmites occurrences along approximately 1,460 km (based on a return trip along the 730 km of District roads, surveying both sides of each road). This GPS information would then be used by District GIS staff to prepare mapping to show spatial distribution of this species. Depending on the results additional work may be required to identify an action plan to address these occurrences. No funds are currently budgeted for this work. Staff notes that should Committee wish to pursue this option, additional quotes would need to be obtained to comply with the Procurement Policy. Initiating immediate Phragmites investigation is anticipated to cost a minimum of $40,000. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Should Committee wish to pursue a coordinated, collaborative effort - which will require time to establish the scope and extent of the issue and to identify appropriate remediation efforts - there is unlikely to be an immediate impact to the 2015 budget; however, additional financial resources may be required to implement any recommendations that result from a coordinated effort of the District and other organizations as part of the collaborative action plan. These costs could be included in future budgets for consideration. If Committee wishes to proceed with a program immediately, a year-end budget overrun of approximately $40,000 within the Environmental and Watershed Programs consultant budget line would result since the 2015 Tax Supported Operating Budget does not include this program. COMMUNICATIONS District staff should work with Area Municipalities and other levels of government, Muskoka Watershed Council and other area organizations as required. In addition, MWC continues to support existing programs (such as Ontario’s Invading Species Awareness Program) which help Muskokans identify new invasive species before they become established in our community and mitigate related impacts. MWC has advised that they are also committed to continuing to educate the community about Best Management Practices, particularly for key stakeholders (such as those who routinely disturb soil including contractors, homebuilders, and construction teams). STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This report supports the following goals/strategies as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 1. Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental,

economic, social and cultural elements. Recognize that in Muskoka a healthy and vibrant economy depends on wise stewardship of the environment. Build on the cultural heritage of Muskoka and demonstrate municipal leadership in environmentally sustainable policies, programs and practices.

1.1 Through leading by example, be recognized as a model municipality for the implementation of environmentally sustainable policies and practices.

9. Work with all order of government, particularly the Area Municipalities, and the people of Muskoka to achieve these goals. Actively advocate for Muskoka with senior levels of government for programs and policies that will assist Muskoka to reach these goals.

Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Christy Doyle, BA, MES (PI), MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Director of Environmental Commissioner of Planning and Watershed Programs and Economic Development S:\WATER\Phragmites\PED-11-2015-7-Phragmites.Doc

PED-11-2015-7-Appendix "I"


Moved By:

Seconded By:

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE January 25, 2007

PED-2-2007-5

THAT Muskoka District Council join the Township of Georgian Bay and the County of Simcoe in requesting improved legislation for the handling of ballast and bilge water in ocean going vessels.

Carried r/ . Defeated

Chair


Moved by B. Boivin and seconded by T. Pilger

THAT $83,500 be included in the 2007 Capital Budget for Muskoka's portion of the Digital Air Photo Project as detailed in Report No. PED-2-2007-2;

AND FURTHER THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka be authorized to sign an Air Photo Licence Agreement with the successful vendor.

Carried.

INFORMATION AND OTHER ITEMS

a) New Subdivisions/Condominiums

7/2007

i) Subdivision File No. 82006-6, Muskoka Ridge, located on Part of lot 21, Concession 6, Muskoka, Town of Gravenhurst was received on August 18, 2006 and deemed to be a complete application on December 7, 2006'

NEW BUSINESS

Great Lakes Invasive Species

Mrs. Brouse highlighted her report which is in response to a question raised by Councillor Klinck at the January 22"d District Council meeting about the introduction of invasive species into the Great lakes through ballast and bilge water of ocean going vessels. A media release from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) outlines many of the concerns expressed by environmental and conservation groups. The report recommends that Muskoka support the resolution passed by the Township of Georgian Bay that encourages the Federal Government to take action to address the issue of the impact of ballast and bilge water from international shipping operatiqns on the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Moved by G. Sutcliffe and seconded by G. Young

THAT Muskoka District. Council join the Township of Georgian Bay and the County of Simcoe in requesting improved legislation for the handling of ballast and bilge water in ocean going vessels.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

115

812007

Carried.


(

l

• 1


DISTRICT COUNCIL February 121 2007

Moved by

Seconded by

THAT the minutes of the Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting No. PED-2-2007 held on January 251 2007 be adopted.

Carried

Defeated

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Mark Stirling

Airport Manager DATE: September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Review of Muskoka Airport Lease Rates and User Fees REPORT NO: PED-11-2015-8 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the Muskoka Airport user fees and charges as detailed in Schedule “A” as attached hereto, BE APPROVED for inclusion in the upcoming 2016 District General User Fee By-Law. ORIGIN Schedule “B” of By-Law No. 2010-33 specifies the need for a comprehensive review of the base lease rates for vacant land and office space to occur in 2015. In addition, other airport user fees (landing fees, aircraft parking fees, etc.) are normally reviewed every 3 years and are now due to be updated for application in the 2016 calendar year. ANALYSIS Land rents, Airport Maintenance Charges (AMCs) and ramp fees (landing, parking and other miscellaneous fees) represent almost 50% of the revenues collected at the Muskoka Airport (budgeted at $260,000 for 2015). Land Rents and AMCs Land rents are collected on a total of 38,955 square metres of land, including land leases and land use permits. In addition to rents, an additional AMC is charged on lands leased or rented to tenants and also on those lands that are privately owned at the airport (an additional 40,672 square metres of land). This charge recognizes that land lessees and owners at the airport enjoy a broad range of benefits from their location, including obvious infrastructure such as the runways, taxiways and aprons, as well as other common airport areas such as the terminal building, the main parking lot and the fuel facility, and related airport operations (customer service, runway maintenance, snow plowing, grass cutting, etc.).

The land rental charges and office rent fees are adjusted each year by the rate of the previous year’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). These rates are increased through each individual lease agreement and a base rate is calculated for vacant land annually. The current land rental rate is $0.953 per m2 per year, and the office rental rate is $24.62 per m2 per month (or $295.44 per m2

per year). The AMC has typically remained constant for longer periods of time, and has been at the rate of $0.80 per m2 per year since 2010. The land rental and AMC combined total $1.753 per m2 per year. For reference, an acre of land equals 4,047 m2 and generates $7,094.39 per year in revenue through the land rental and AMC combined. Each tenant is also responsible to pay Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) and is assessed for Real Estate Taxes based primarily on the value of the structure on their lot. Muskoka Airport’s combined lease rates (lease + AMC) were compared to 6 other airports from both southern and northern Ontario (see Appendix “I”). It should be noted that these comparisons are challenging as other airports have unique formulas when calculating land lease rates based on variables such as services provided (water, sewer, hydro, natural gas, communication lines, taxiway access, ramp access, road access, etc.); land uses (commercial vs. private); land areas (different rates for hangar foot print vs. surrounding lands); and development charges (different charges for lands depending on the cost of providing those areas). After comparison, Muskoka Airport’s total land lease rate of $1.753 was found to be slightly above the northern Ontario average of $1.68, yet somewhat below the overall average of $2.11. Since the rental rate is currently locked into numerous leases on five (5) year review cycles, and automatically steps up each year with the change in CPI, it is recommended that the Muskoka Airport AMC be adjusted to bring the overall land lease rate more in line with other similar airports. Thus, the change proposed in Schedule “A” recommends raising the AMC rate from $0.80 to $0.953 which would make the AMC equal to the current land rental rate. This would mean that Airport land owners paying the AMC fee only would be paying about one half the amount that a leasing tenant pays through both the land rent and AMC combined. The combined rate of land rent and AMC would then go from $1.753 to $1.906 per m2. For reference, this would mean an increase for the cost of leasing one (1) acre from $7,094.39 per year to $7,713.58 before taxes and before the 2016 CPI rent rate adjustment. No changes are being recommended for the office lease rate which has been keeping pace with CPI adjustments. Furthermore, a competitive office lease rate is valuable in attracting new or start-up businesses to the Muskoka Airport. Ramp Fees Ramp fees are fees that are charged to aircraft using the airport, and as noted above, include landing, parking and other miscellaneous fees such as catering and call-outs. These fees vary in rate, depending generally on the weight of the aircraft. All small aircraft weighing less than 3,000 kg are exempt from landing fees and small aircraft weighing less than 5,000 that are also based at the Muskoka Airport are also exempt from these fees. Staff’s objective in the review of ramp fees was to ensure that the airport is maximizing its profitability while continuing to build its customer base.

In reviewing the charges for aircraft landing and parking fees, Muskoka Airport’s rates were compared to eight similar sized airports (Appendix “I”). It should be noted that most airports have a unique calculation of charges and often implement extra fees which makes a clear comparison of aircraft landing and parking fees difficult. Furthermore, each airport is unique in its size, customer base, and the services it provides. Although the 2014 Strategy Corp. report explored the concept of the imposition of fees for small aircraft (landing or membership fees were explored), it was acknowledged that this is unusual at small airports. In addition, the airport user fee comparison undertaken by staff as part of this fee review revealed that exemptions for light aircraft remain an industry standard and imposing a landing fee could drive away a very important year-round customer base. As a result, no changes are being recommended as it relates to the light aircraft sector of the general aviation community. A comparison of rates for entry level commercial aircraft types revealed that Muskoka Airport was on par with other airports and raising these rates may create a deterrent for smaller aviation businesses. However, fee adjustments for the larger commercial aircraft categories would be appropriate to take advantage of Muskoka Airport’s very unique commercial business jet market. The fee updates (Appendix “II”) are proposed to continue to build our customer base in the private aircraft and entry level commercial market while maximizing the revenue opportunities from the larger business jet market. An increase in the charge rate for after-hours staff call-outs is also recommended in Schedule “A” to fully cover the costs of providing this service over the next several years. No changes are proposed for any of the other Airport fees (Minimum Landing Fee for Turboprops/Rotary Wing, Land Use Permit Fee, Hydro Usage Fee, Ground Power Unit Fee, Cargo Loading Fee, and Heavy Equipment Fee). FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Once all tenants and land owners are being charged the new proposed rates, the increase to the AMC rate would result in an increase in revenues of $11,254. The proposed increase to the landing fees averages about 12.5% and although dependant on future traffic, it is expected to generate an additional $12,250 while the overall increase to parking rates of about 25% may yield an additional $4,500. Based on the average number of call outs over the last two years, an additional $2,650 per year of airport revenue is projected as a result of the increase to the staff call-out charge rate. All combined, these proposed rate changes are expected to yield an additional $30,654 per year. COMMUNICATIONS The appropriate notices would be provided to lease tenants pursuant to the terms of their leases. The schedule of Airport fees would be published as part of the District General User Fee By-Law and also included on the Muskoka Airport Website.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This recommendation is consistent with the following goal (in part) as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 3. Develop the Muskoka Airport as an economic development tool that supports the social

and business needs of Muskoka. Together with the Area Municipalities, encourage a positive business environment for all sectors of the economy.

Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Mark Stirling Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Airport Manager Commissioner of Planning and

Economic Development s:\airport2\draft ped reports\ped 2015\fee review\ped-11-2015-8-airport fee review-final.docx

Schedule “A”

1. The Airport Maintenance Charge (AMC) should be changed to $0.953 per square metre per year.

2. Proposed changes to the landing fees

Minimum Landing Fee: Jet Aircraft = $90.00

Aircraft Weight (GTOW) Landing Fee Rate Itinerant Aircraft No Fee less than 3,000 kg Aircraft Based at Muskoka Airport No Fee less than 5,000 kg 3,000 kg to 4,000 kg $ 7.00 / 1,000 kg + tax 5,000 kg to 9,000 kg $ 8.00 / 1,000 kg + tax 10,000 kg to 19,000 kg $ 10.00 / 1,000 kg + tax 20,000 kg to 44,000 kg $ 11.00 / 1,000 kg + tax 45,000 kg or greater $ 12.00 / 1,000 kg + tax

3. Proposed changes to the aircraft parking fees

Minimum Overnight Aircraft Parking Fees:

Jet Aircraft = $60.00

Aircraft Weight (GTOW) Nightly Fee Monthly 6 Month Fee Tie-downs on Grass (May through Oct. only) $ 8.00 + tax $ 100.00 + tax $ 300.00 + tax Tie-downs on Pavement Edge $ 10.00 + tax $ 150.00 + tax $ 500.00 + tax Less than 5,000 kg on Apron $ 15.00 + tax $ 250.00 + tax Not Available 5,000 kg to 9,000 kg on Apron $ 40.00 + tax $ 664.00 + tax Not Available 10,000 kg to 19,000 kg on Apron $ 75.00 + tax $ 1,245.00 + tax Not Available 20,000 kg to 44,000 kg on Apron $ 150.00 + tax $ 2,490.00 + tax Not Available 45,000 kg or greater on Apron $ 300.00 + tax $ 4,980.00 + tax Not Available

4. The silent hours call-out charge should be changed to $175.00 for the first 3 hours, and $75.00 per hour for each and every subsequent one hour period.

5. No changes are proposed for any of the other Airport fees (Minimum Landing Fee for Turboprops/Rotary Wing, Land Use Permit Fee, Hydro Usage Fee, Ground Power Unit Fee, Cargo Loading Fee, and Heavy Equipment Fee).

Pag

e 6

App

endi

x "I"

2015

Com

paris

on o

f Pro

pose

d Fe

es a

t Oth

er S

imila

r Airp

orts

Mus

koka

Cur

rent

Rat

es:

Rent

$0.

9530

+ A

MC

$0.

80 =

$1.

753

sq.m

/yrsq

.m/yr

sq.m

/yrNo

rther

n O

ntar

io$1

.680

sq.m

/yrsq

.m/yr

sq.m

/yrsq

.m/yr

Sout

hern

Ont

ario

$2.5

42sq

.m/yr

sq.m

/yr

sq.m

/yr

R

ent $

0.95

30 +

Pro

pose

d AM

C $

0.95

30 =

$1.

906

(bef

ore

CPI

rent

adj

ustm

ent f

or 2

016)

*

** W

here

requ

ired,

Dom

estic

& In

tern

atio

nal L

andi

ng F

ees,

Tim

e-of

-Day

Lan

ding

Fee

s, o

r Com

mer

cial

& P

rivat

e La

ndin

g Fe

es w

ere

aver

aged

for c

ompa

rison

pur

pose

s.

2,00

0C

essn

a 17

2 (p

isto

n)N

/AN/

AN/

A15

.00

*N/

A29

.02

*N

/A13

.86

20.0

0 *

19.4

74,

000

Car

avan

(tur

bopr

op)

42.0

022

.00

31.8

035

.20

28.8

423

.20

22.9

627

.72

20.0

0 *

27.3

96,

000

King

Air

(turb

opro

p)48

.00

36.0

047

.70

52.8

043

.26

34.8

034

.44

41.5

835

.00

40.7

08,

000

Beec

h 19

00 (t

urbo

prop

)64

.00

48.0

063

.60

70.4

057

.68

46.4

045

.92

55.4

450

.00

54.6

88,

000

Beec

h Je

t80

.00

48.0

063

.60

70.4

073

.48

46.4

045

.92

61.7

650

.00

57.4

515

,000

Cha

lleng

er 6

00 (j

et)

150.

0097

.50

119.

2513

2.00

137.

7710

7.78

86.1

011

5.80

70.0

010

8.28

42,0

00G

loba

l Exp

ress

(jet

)46

2.00

294.

0040

4.25

467.

4645

1.92

349.

0224

1.08

421.

6890

.00

339.

93* N

o ch

arge

/priv

ate

* No

char

ge/p

rivat

e* N

o ch

arge

/priv

ate

Plus

Airp

ort

Plus

Ter

min

al F

eePl

us T

erm

inal

Pl

us T

erm

inal

&Pl

us Im

prov

emen

t

Faci

lities

Cha

rge

& Fa

cility

Cha

rge

Fee

Per S

eat

Pass

enge

r Fee

sFe

e Pe

r Lan

ding

*

** A

t man

y ot

her a

irpor

ts, H

ome

Base

flig

ht s

choo

l land

ings

(com

mer

cial

flig

hts)

are

usu

ally

char

ged

20%

to 3

0% o

f reg

ular

fees

- or

a m

onth

ly fe

e pe

r airc

raft.

2,00

0C

essn

a 17

2 (p

isto

n)8,

10,

15

10.0

010

.00

10.0

017

.03

14.5

110

.93

11.6

510

.00

11.7

74,

000

Car

avan

(tur

bopr

op)

15.0

026

.40

16.7

510

.00

17.0

314

.51

43.7

111

.65

15.0

019

.38

6,00

0Ki

ng A

ir (tu

rbop

rop)

40.0

043

.20

29.4

510

.00

20.6

219

.22

43.7

120

.58

25.0

026

.47

8,00

0Be

ech

1900

(tur

bopr

op)

40.0

057

.60

29.4

520

.00

20.6

219

.22

43.7

120

.58

25.0

029

.52

8,00

0Be

ech

Jet

60.0

057

.60

29.4

520

.00

20.6

219

.22

43.7

120

.58

25.0

029

.52

15,0

00C

halle

nger

600

(jet

)75

.00

117.

0052

.00

20.0

040

.63

37.9

781

.96

38.1

040

.00

53.4

642

,000

Glo

bal E

xpre

ss (j

et)

150.

0035

2.80

83.2

510

6.19

61.5

558

.85

81.9

659

.06

60.0

010

7.96

over

nigh

ttw

o 12

hr p

erio

dspe

r day

per d

aype

r day

over

nigh

tov

erni

ght

per d

ayov

erni

ght

*

** P

arkin

g Fe

es c

alcu

late

d to

repr

esen

t a 2

4 ho

ur p

erio

d.

Airp

ort

Land

Ren

t

(Ren

t + A

MC

)

$2.1

11

Mus

koka

Sau

lt Ste

. Mar

ieS

udbu

ryN

orth

Bay

Lake

Sim

coe

Regi

onal

Nia

gara

Dis

trict

Pet

erbo

roug

h

Aver

age

with

out M

usko

ka

$1.5

50$2

.560

$2.1

10$2

.957

$1.9

06$1

.730

$1.7

60

Aver

age

Land

ing

Fee

Aver

age

Park

ing

Fee

Pete

rbor

ough

Pete

rbor

ough

Thun

der B

ay

Land

ing

Sudb

ury

Land

ing

Osh

awa

Land

ing

King

ston

La

ndin

g

Thun

der B

ay

Park

ing

Sudb

ury

Park

ing

Osh

awa

Park

ing

King

ston

Pa

rkin

gTi

mm

ins

Park

ing

GTO

W k

gAi

rcra

ftM

usko

ka

Land

ing

Tim

min

s La

ndin

gSi

mco

e La

ndin

gNo

rth

Bay

Land

ing

GTO

W k

gAi

rcra

ftM

usko

ka

Park

ing

Sim

coe

Park

ing

Nort

h Ba

y Pa

rkin

g

Appendix “II”

Muskoka Airport Fee Schedule – Proposed For 2016 All rates in Canadian Dollars and subject to 13% Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)

Landing Fees: No Charge for any aircraft less than 3,000 kg No Charge for aircraft based at Muskoka Airport if less than 5,000 kg Landing fees levied for the first landing of each day Landing fees waived for aircraft used for Search & Rescue or Search & Rescue Training activities Aircraft GTOW weights determined by Transport Canada Report TP 143 or the appropriate Aircraft Registry Aircraft GTOW weights rounded up to the nearest 1,000 kg

Minimum Landing Fees (for aircraft 3,000 kg or more NOT based at CYQA):

Turboprop & Rotary Wing = $42.00 Jets = $75.00 (increase to $90.00)

Aircraft Weight (GTOW) Current Landing Fee Rate

Proposed Landing Fee Rate

Itinerant Aircraft No Fee Below 3,000 kg No Fee Below 3,000 kg Aircraft Based @ Muskoka Airpor No Fee Below 5,000 kg No Fee Below 5,000 kg 3,000kg – 4,000 kg $ 7.00 / 1,000 kg $ 7.00 / 1,000 kg 5,000 kg – 9,000 kg $ 8.00 / 1,000 kg $ 8.00 / 1,000 kg 10,000 kg – 19,000 kg $ 9.00 / 1,000 kg $ 10.00 / 1,000 kg 20,000 kg - 44,000 kg $ 10.00 / 1,000 kg $ 11.00 / 1,000 kg 45,000 kg or greater $ 11.00 / 1,000 kg $ 12.00 / 1,000 kg

Parking Fees: Parking fees levied for any aircraft parked on Muskoka Airport lands after 8:00 PM each day

Minimum Overnight Parking Fees: Jets = $50 (increase to $60.00)

Aircraft Weight (GTOW) Current Nightly

Fee

Proposed Nightly

Fee

Current Monthly

Fee

Proposed Monthly

Fee

6 Month Fee

Tie-downs on Grass (May through Oct. only) $ 8.00 $ 8.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 Tie-downs on Pavement Edge $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ 500.00 Less than 5,000 kg on Apron $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 Not Available 5,000 kg – 9,000 kg on Apron $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 500.00 $ 664.00 Not Available 10,000 kg – 19,000 kg on Apron $ 60.00 $ 75.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,245.00 Not Available 20,000 kg - 44,000 kg on Apron $ 120.00 $ 150.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,490.00 Not Available 45,000 kg or greater on Apron $ 240.00 $ 300.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,980.00 Not Available

Hydro Charges: $10.00 per 24 hour period or any portion thereof. Ground Power Unit: $40.00 connection fee & up to 30 minutes use - plus $10.00 per each subsequent 30 minute interval (fee may be waived if GPU is required to fuel aircraft). After Hours Service Fees: $150.00 (increase to $175.00) call-out charge for the first 3 hours - plus $50.00 (increase to $75.00) per each subsequent hour (at discretion of Manager). Aircraft Cargo Loading &/or Unloading (loader forklift service with operator to service aircraft): $100.00 for the first hour (one hour minimum) - plus $2.00 per minute after the first hour. Heavy Equipment Services (includes operator for snow removal, forklift services, landscaping, etc.): $2.00 per minute - (requires prior arrangement and staff availability). Airport Maintenance Charge (for land use permits, property owned or leased): $0.80 (increase to $0.953) / sq. m / yr. Airport Base Land Lease Rate: $0.953 / sq. m / yr. ………. (2015 value – subject to annual CPI adjustment) Airport Office Lease Rate: $24.62 / sq. m / month ………. (2015 value – subject to annual CPI adjustment)

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee

FROM: Sharon Donald Director of Budgets and Financial Planning


SUBJECT: Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – June 30, 2015

REPORT NO: PED-11-2015-1 ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – June 30, 2015, as summarized in Schedule A to Report No. PED-11-2015-1, BE RECEIVED.

ORIGIN

In 2005, Council adopted Policy AD:51 Capital Budget Preparation, Monitoring and Reporting. The revised policy requires staff to submit formal reports to the Standing Committees and Council on the status of the District of Muskoka’s capital program as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st. This report deals with the Planning and Airport portions of the Tax Supported Capital Budget.

The purpose of this report is to provide the various Standing Committees with the opportunity to review the status of individual projects, highlight material variances, identify projects for closure and to amend the budget where appropriate.

ANALYSIS

Attached is a schedule of capital expenditures incurred to June 30, 2015 (Schedule A), as reported on August 11, 2015. It is important to note that once a project is closed, it will no longer appear on Schedule A.

Schedule A provides the current status of each open project. Within the schedule, the PY (Prior Year) Budget Open Projects column includes prior year budgets carried forward. The 2015 Annual Budget is the current year Capital Budget and Forecast approved April 20, 2015. The Approved Amendments column contains all amendments approved since the commencement of the project. The Total Amended Budget column is the sum of PY Budget Open Projects, 2015 Annual Budget and Approved Amendments columns. The LTD Actuals 2015 column contains charges incurred from the start of the project to June 30, 2015. The Budget Remaining 2015 column is the difference between the Total Amended Budget and the LTD Actuals 2015

Page 1

THE D1sTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MusKOKA CORPORATE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1 L 1 N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 Fax (705) 645-5319 1-800-461-421 O (705 area code)

www.muskoka.on.ca

Managing Our Legac!1 Together

columns. The Forecast to Complete column includes the remaining balance on contracts awarded and purchase orders outstanding as well as all other total forecasted expenditures required to complete the project. The Favourable/(Unfavourable) Proj. Variance column is the difference between the Budget Remaining 2015 and the Forecast to Complete columns. Tenders awarded to date along with comments indicating estimated costs and/or future tender dates are noted to give Council an idea of timing for budgeted projects.


Within the Planning and Airport capital budgets, $5,012,293 remains to be spent as of June 30, 2015. The projected forecast to complete all 5 projects is $5,012,293, leaving no projected variance, as shown in Schedule A attached.

Impact on Financing

There is no impact on financing, as the projects are expected to be completed on budget.

COMMUNICATIONS

Capital Project Quarterly Variance Reports are submitted to the Standing Committees and Council on the status of the District’s capital program as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st.


The Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report supports the following goal as outlined in the District’s Strategic Priorities:

2. Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountabilitythrough the budget process, public reporting of budget results, the corporatecredit rating and debt reduction.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon Donald, CPA, CMA Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Director of Budgets and Commissioner of Finance and Financial Planning Corporate Services

Page 2

Plan

ning

Plan

ning

Offi

cial

Pla

n N

on-T

angi

ble

Cap

ital

Tour

ism

Pol

icy

Rev

iew

8100

07

Expe

nditu

res

90,0

0090

,000

66,2

6723

,733

23,7

33C

onsu

ltant

's re

port

com

plet

e. P

olic

y up

date

s to

be

unde

rtak

en. R

emai

ning

fu

nds

allo

cate

d fo

r pot

entia

l OM

B H

earin

g. T

otal

bud

get a

lloca

tion

$90,

000.

OP

Upd

ates

8100

19

Expe

nditu

res

25,0

0050

,000

75,0

003,

759

71,2

4171

,241

Offi

cial

Pla

n po

licy

revi

ews

ongo

ing.

Tot

al b

udge

t allo

catio

n $7

5,00

0.G

row

th P

olic

y U

pdat

e81

0021

Expe

nditu

res

35,0

0035

,000

35,0

0035

,000

Con

sulta

nt's

repo

rt c

ompl

ete.

Pol

icy

upda

tes

to b

e un

dert

aken

. Rem

aini

ng

fund

s al

loca

ted

for p

oten

tial O

MB

Hea

ring.

Tot

al b

udge

t allo

catio

n $3

5,00

0.

Tota

l O

ffici

al P

lan

Non

-Tan

gibl

e C

apita

l15

0,00

050

,000

200,

000

70,0

2612

9,97

412

9,97

4

Wat

er S

trat

egy

Non

-Tan

gibl

e C

apita

lW

ater

Qua

lity

Mod

el R

evie

w81

0010

Expe

nditu

res

170,

000

170,

000

159,

574

10,4

2610

,426

In p

rogr

ess.

Tot

al b

udge

t allo

catio

n $1

70,0

00.

Tota

l W

ater

Str

ateg

y N

on-T

angi

ble

Cap

ital

170,

000

170,

000

159,

574

10,4

2610

,426

Tota

l Pl

anni

ng32

0,00

050

,000

370,

000

229,

600

140,

400

140,

400

Tota

l Pl

anni

ng32

0,00

050

,000

370,

000

229,

600

140,

400

140,

400

Tota

l Pla

nnin

g32

0,00

050

,000

370,

000

229,

600

140,

400

140,

400

PY B

udge

t

Ope

n

Proj

ects

*

2015

Annu

al

Bud

get *

Appr

oved

Amen

d-

men

ts *

Tota

l

Amen

ded

Bud

get *

LTD

Actu

als

2015

Bud

get

Rem

aini

ng

2015

Fore

cast

to C

ompl

ete

Favo

urab

le/

(Unf

avou

rabl

e)

Proj

. Var

ianc

e

Stat

usR

ecom

men

datio

n

Cap

ital P

roje

ct Q

uart

erly

Var

ianc

e R

epor

t - D

etai

lS

ched

ule

AFo

r per

iod

endi

ng J

une

30, 2

015

Plan

ning

Run

Dat

e: 8

/11/

15 1

:06

PM

Cap

ital F

orec

ast J

une

Cap

ital B

udge

t Var

ianc

e E

xpen

ditu

re D

etai

l*

This

col

umn

does

not

tie

to b

udge

t rep

orts

as

num

bers

onl

y re

flect

act

ive

proj

ects

. Clo

sed

proj

ects

hav

e be

en re

mov

ed fr

om th

e re

port.

Pag

e 3

Airp

ort

Airp

ort

Airp

ort O

pera

tions

Run

way

Maj

or R

epai

rs 2

015

3600

12

Expe

nditu

res

6,26

0,00

018

5,00

06,

445,

000

1,57

3,10

74,

871,

893

4,87

1,89

3C

urre

ntly

in p

rogr

ess

with

exp

ecte

d co

mpl

etio

n Fa

ll 20

15. T

otal

bud

get

allo

catio

n $6

,445

,000

.

Tota

l Ai

rpor

t Ope

ratio

ns6,

260,

000

185,

000

6,44

5,00

01,

573,

107

4,87

1,89

34,

871,

893

Tota

l Ai

rpor

t6,

260,

000

185,

000

6,44

5,00

01,

573,

107

4,87

1,89

34,

871,

893

Tota

l A

irpor

t6,

260,

000

185,

000

6,44

5,00

01,

573,

107

4,87

1,89

34,

871,

893

Tota

l Airp

ort

6,26

0,00

018

5,00

06,

445,

000

1,57

3,10

74,

871,

893

4,87

1,89

3

PY B

udge

t

Ope

n

Proj

ects

*

2015

Annu

al

Bud

get *

Appr

oved

Amen

d-

men

ts *

Tota

l

Amen

ded

Bud

get *

LTD

Actu

als

2015

Bud

get

Rem

aini

ng

2015

Fore

cast

to C

ompl

ete

Favo

urab

le/

(Unf

avou

rabl

e)

Proj

. Var

ianc

e

Stat

usR

ecom

men

datio

n

Cap

ital P

roje

ct Q

uart

erly

Var

ianc

e R

epor

t - D

etai

lS

ched

ule

AFo

r per

iod

endi

ng J

une

30, 2

015

Airp

ort

Run

Dat

e: 8

/11/

15 1

:06

PM

Cap

ital F

orec

ast J

une

Cap

ital B

udge

t Var

ianc

e E

xpen

ditu

re D

etai

l*

This

col

umn

does

not

tie

to b

udge

t rep

orts

as

num

bers

onl

y re

flect

act

ive

proj

ects

. Clo

sed

proj

ects

hav

e be

en re

mov

ed fr

om th

e re

port.

Pag

e 4

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: September 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Planning and Economic Development Department Operating Budget

Variance Report – June 30, 2015 REPORT NO: PED-11-2015-2 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the Planning and Economic Development Department Operating Budget Variance Report as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED. ORIGIN Policy AD:52, Operating Budget Administration requires the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services to provide the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee, the other Standing Committees and Council with a written status report on the yearly budgets on a quarterly basis. This report highlights significant budget variances for the Tax Supported Operating Budget. ANALYSIS Attached to this report are schedules that outline the significant budget variances for the period ending June 30, 2015. The schedules provide an overall department view as well as a breakdown for the department by major object and by program net levy along with a brief narrative description of the variances. The Tax Supported Operating Variance Report by Object shows the year-to-date (YTD)



Page 1

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Although there are individual budget variances within the various operating budgets, there is nothing, at this time, to indicate that the department, as a whole, will not end the year on budget. As noted, in the first quarter report, the 2015 budget for Airport fuel margins was derived using the historical average. However, Airport fuel sales in 2014 yielded actual margins below this historical amount. If 2015 Airport fuel margins are consistent with 2014, there could be an unfavourable variance of $33,000. Actual results to date have not indicated this unfavourable variance will occur, but the majority of fuel sales occur during the summer months. Staff will continue to monitor these results and provide further updates in the third quarter report. It should also be noted that the purchase price and selling price of fuel at the airport are less than expected in the 2015 budget. Staff is not expecting there to be an impact on the net fuel profit margin, however, both the purchase costs and revenue from airport fuel will be less than budget. COMMUNICATIONS Operating Budget Variance Reports are submitted to the Standing Committees and Council on a quarterly basis for results as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st of each year. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The report on the Tax Supported Operating Budget variance supports the following goal as outlined in the District’s Strategic Priorities: 2. Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountability through


Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Michael Duben Commissioner of Finance and Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services

Page 2

TS V

aria

nce

by O

bjec

t Com

mitt

ee-P

ED

Plan

ning

& E

cono

mic

Dev

elop

men

tR

un D

ate:

8/2

7/15

2:0

1 PM

2014

2014

2015

2015

Pro

ject

edJu

neA

nnua

lJu

neA

nnua

lB

udge

tP

erce

ntA

nnua

lYT

D A

ctua

lsB

udge

tYT

D A

ctua

lsB

udge

tV

aria

nce

Spe

ntV

aria

nce

Favo

urab

le/

(Unf

avou

rabl

e)C

omm

ents

Exp

endi

ture

sO

pera

ting

Cos

tsP

erso

nnel

847,

780

1,98

0,09

187

7,61

81,

896,

800

1,01

9,18

246

.3%

Favo

urab

le v

aria

nce

mai

nly

due

to P

erso

nnel

rate

gap

ping

for

vario

us p

ositi

ons

and

seas

onal

nat

ure

of p

rogr

ams.

Em

ploy

ee R

elat

ed E

xpen

ses

7,71

040

,970

8,61

340

,020

31,4

0721

.5%

Tim

ing

varia

nce

for T

rain

ing

and

Con

fere

nce

cost

s to

be

incu

rred

in th

e se

cond

hal

f of t

he y

ear.

Mat

eria

ls &

Sup

plie

s63

7,89

71,

413,

245

399,

666

1,30

9,06

190

9,39

530

.5%

Tim

ing

varia

nce

mai

nly

due

to s

easo

nalit

y of

Airp

ort A

viat

ion

Fuel

pur

chas

ed fo

r res

ale.

In

addi

tion,

the

per l

itre

purc

hase

pr

ice

and

selli

ng p

rice

of fu

el to

dat

e in

201

5 is

low

er th

an th

e pr

ice

estim

ated

in th

e bu

dget

and

pric

ing

achi

eved

201

4.

Ove

rall

the

prof

it m

argi

n on

fuel

is e

xpec

ted

to b

e on

bud

get.

Pur

chas

ed S

ervi

ces

53,1

4221

2,15

548

,029

181,

055

133,

026

26.5

%Ti

min

g va

rianc

e fo

r Con

sulta

nt, G

IS S

oftw

are

Mai

nten

ance

an

d se

ason

al A

irpor

t cos

ts.

Tran

sfer

To

Oth

ers

150,

973

343,

420

156,

376

318,

324

161,

948

49.1

%O

n bu

dget

.To

tal

Ope

ratin

g C

osts

1,69

7,50

23,

989,

881

1,49

0,30

23,

745,

260

2,25

4,95

839

.8%

Fina

nce

Cha

rges

/Res

erve

sFi

nanc

e C

harg

es2,

980

15,0

001,

941

15,0

0013

,059

12.9

%Ti

min

g va

rianc

e fo

r Airp

ort B

ank

Fees

to b

e in

curr

ed o

ver t

he

sum

mer

mon

ths.

Res

erve

s31

5,00

060

8,40

030

2,50

059

5,15

029

2,65

050

.8%

On

budg

et.

Tota

l Fi

nanc

e C

harg

es/R

eser

ves

317,

980

623,

400

304,

441

610,

150

305,

709

49.9

%N

et In

tern

al S

ervi

ce C

harg

esFl

eet

86,1

5917

9,21

089

,580

178,

240

88,6

6050

.3%

On

budg

et.

Insu

ranc

e3,

950

7,90

04,

400

8,80

04,

400

50.0

%O

n bu

dget

.S

uppo

rt S

ervi

ces

51,5

7393

,670

47,9

6198

,000

50,0

3948

.9%

On

budg

et.

Tota

l N

et In

tern

al S

ervi

ce C

harg

es14

1,68

228

0,78

014

1,94

128

5,04

014

3,09

949

.8%

Tota

l Ex

pend

iture

s2,

157,

164

4,89

4,06

11,

936,

684

4,64

0,45

02,

703,

766

41.7

%R

even

ues

Gra

nts

(31,

905)

(140

,675

)(4

9,26

8)(1

05,5

79)

(56,

311)

46.7

%A

ny u

nspe

nt M

OE

CC

reve

nue

for D

orse

t Lab

will

be

defe

rred

to

201

6.

Tax

Supp

orte

d O

pera

ting

Varia

nce

Rep

ort b

y O

bjec

t

Pag

e 3

TS V

aria

nce

by O

bjec

t Com

mitt

ee-P

ED

Plan

ning

& E

cono

mic

Dev

elop

men

tR

un D

ate:

8/2

7/15

2:0

1 PM

2014

2014

2015

2015

Pro

ject

edJu

neA

nnua

lJu

neA

nnua

lB

udge

tP

erce

ntA

nnua

lYT

D A

ctua

lsB

udge

tYT

D A

ctua

lsB

udge

tV

aria

nce

Spe

ntV

aria

nce

Favo

urab

le/

(Unf

avou

rabl

e)C

omm

ents

Tax

Supp

orte

d O

pera

ting

Varia

nce

Rep

ort b

y O

bjec

t

Use

r Fee

s(7

71,4

21)

(1,8

72,3

65)

(544

,631

)(1

,759

,174

)(1

,214

,543

)31

.0%

Tim

ing

varia

nce

mai

nly

due

to s

easo

nalit

y of

Avi

atio

n Fu

el

Sal

es a

nd R

amp

Fees

at A

irpor

t. In

add

ition

, the

per

litre

pu

rcha

se p

rice

and

selli

ng p

rice

of fu

el to

dat

e in

201

5 is

lo

wer

than

the

pric

e es

timat

ed in

the

budg

et a

nd p

ricin

g ac

hiev

ed 2

014.

Ove

rall

the

prof

it m

argi

n on

fuel

is e

xpec

ted

to b

e on

bud

get.

App

licat

ion

Fees

/Per

mits

(19,

875)

(37,

500)

(15,

632)

(22,

500)

(6,8

68)

69.5

%S

ubdi

visi

on A

pplic

atio

n an

d O

ffici

al P

lan

Am

endm

ent F

ees

are

trend

ing

abov

e bu

dget

to d

ate.

Ser

vice

Cha

rge

Mun

icip

al(5

,796

)(7

,000

)(4

,941

)(5

,000

)(5

9)98

.8%

Rev

enue

from

the

Are

a M

unic

ipal

ities

for G

IS S

ervi

ces

is

likel

y to

exc

eed

budg

et.

Tota

l R

even

ues

(828

,997

)(2

,057

,540

)(6

14,4

72)

(1,8

92,2

53)

(1,2

77,7

81)

32.5

%To

tal N

et L

evy

1,32

8,16

72,

836,

521

1,32

2,21

22,

748,

197

1,42

5,98

548

.1%

Pag

e 4

TS V

aria

nce

Net

Lev

y Su

mm

ary-

PED

Plan

ning

& E

cono

mic

Dev

elop

men

tR

un D

ate:

8/2

7/15

2:0

2 PM

2014

2014

2015

2015

Pro

ject

edJu

neA

nnua

lJu

neA

nnua

lB

udge

tP

erce

ntA

nnua

lYT

D A

ctua

lsB

udge

tYT

D A

ctua

lsB

udge

tV

aria

nce

Spe

ntV

aria

nce

Favo

urab

le/

(Unf

avou

rabl

e)C

omm

ents

Plan

ning

& E

cono

mic

Dev

elop

men

tP

lann

ing

& P

olic

y43

7,31

51,

133,

220

426,

273

995,

330

569,

057

42.8

%Fa

vour

able

var

ianc

e m

ainl

y du

e to

Per

sonn

el ra

te g

appi

ng fo

r va

rious

pos

ition

s, a

s w

ell a

s C

ours

e an

d C

onfe

renc

e co

sts

to

be in

curr

ed in

the

fall.

Eco

nom

ic D

evel

opm

ent &

MTM

A16

1,62

332

5,49

515

7,92

332

7,59

516

9,67

248

.2%

On

budg

et.

Airp

ort

475,

464

783,

481

476,

265

817,

707

341,

442

58.2

%Ti

min

g va

rianc

e m

ainl

y du

e to

slo

w re

venu

e ge

nera

tion

durin

g th

e fir

st h

alf o

f the

yea

r. M

ajor

ity o

f rev

enue

will

be

gene

rate

d ov

er th

e su

mm

er m

onth

s.

Wat

er S

trate

gy18

0,32

538

4,56

018

4,46

939

6,28

021

1,81

146

.6%

Favo

urab

le v

aria

nce

due

to s

easo

nalit

y an

d C

onsu

ltant

cos

ts

to b

e in

curr

ed in

sec

ond

half

of th

e ye

ar.

Geo

mat

ics

(17,

620)

5,00

0(2

2,14

9)5,

000

27,1

49(4

43.0

%)

Tim

ing

varia

nce

for e

xpen

ditu

res

to b

e m

ade

late

r in

the

year

as

opp

osed

to re

cove

ries

bein

g re

cord

ed m

onth

ly b

ased

on

budg

et.

911

Add

ress

ing

91,0

6020

4,76

599

,431

206,

285

106,

854

48.2

%O

n bu

dget

.

Tota

l Pla

nnin

g &

Eco

nom

ic D

evel

opm

ent

1,32

8,16

72,

836,

521

1,32

2,21

22,

748,

197

1,42

5,98

548

.1%

Tax

Supp

orte

d O

pera

ting

Varia

nce

Net

Lev

y Su

mm

ary

Pag

e 5

PED-11-2015-Info-A

Page 1

\~- \ 5'1

Minister of Transport Ministre des Transports

Ottawa, Canada K1A ONS

.. e .z

c .. .:i r :: -~ 0

~~00

O/ a ', • 'I(

• 1~ce & Corp. Serv. gr g

JUL 2 l 2015 ~g ==.: cWor'Ks ;, ann ng

Mr. John W. Klinck District Chair The District Municipality of Muskoka 70 Pine Street

'"rr11mJt11ty Serv Lega Corr;:u:er ?e•s::"'nel

a a a a o a a a

C EMC o a

Bracebridge ON PlL 1N3

Dear Mr. Klinck:

Land Ambulance :::cmmttee Council c ::irrespondence Comments.

Thank you for your correspondence of March 30, 2015, regarding the rehabilitation of the runway at Muskoka Airport.

The Government recognizes the importance of air transportation to Canada"s economy. While Transport Canada does not currently have any programs to fund infrastructure projects at airports without scheduled passenger service, I am encouraged to learn about your plans to rehabilitate the runway at Muskoka Airport, and I wish you every success with this project.

I also appreciate receiving your views concerning the infrastructure funding criteria that is used for airports without scheduled passenger service. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, for his consideration.

Again, thank you for writing and for bringing this issue to my attention. Please be assured that Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada officials will be made aware of this situation and its potential implications.

0 0 0 a

Canada RECEIVt.D

JUL 2 7 2015

PED-11-2015-Info-A

Page 2

Sincerely,

The Honourable Lisa Raitt, P.C., M.P. Minister of Transport

-2-

c.c. The Honourable Tony Clement, P.C., M.P. President of the Treasury Board

The Honourable Denis Lebel, P .C., M.P. Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec


CORPORATE & EMERGENCY SERVICES COMMITTEE

MEETING NO. CES-11-2015

MINUTES

PLACE: Council Chamber, District Administration Building

TIME: 4:00 p.m.


PRESENT: Committee Chair S. Aitchison; Members L. Braid, D. Furniss, G. Smith, B. Young

ABSENT: District Chair J. Klinck; Member P. Donaldson

OFFICIALS PRESENT: M. Duben, Chief Administrative Officer; J. Stevens,Commissioner of Finance & Corporate Services; R.Williams, Commissioner of Community Services; D.Crowder, District Clerk

OTHERS PRESENT: Deputy District Chair L. Giaschi-Pacini, Councillor P. Harding; S. Donald, Director of Budgets and Financial Planning; H. Moore, Director of Programs; M. Ross, Communications Officer

CALL TO ORDER

Committee Chair Aitchison called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m.

DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS

None were declared.

BUDGETS AND FINANCIAL PLANNING

a) Corporate and Emergency Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report andCorporate Summary – June 30, 2015Report No. CES-11-2015-1

The Committee discussed an anticipated increase in revenues when the new collectionprotocols come into effect for Provincial Offences Administration through Bill 31.

Moved by B. Young and seconded by G. Smith R77/2015-CES

THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report and

Corporate Summary as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED.

Carried.

b) Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report – June 30, 2015 Report No. CES-11-2015-2 The Committee discussed the downward trend on water consumption and Ms. Stevens advised that staff are reviewing the ratio of fixed to variable charges in the rate model in order to reduce the impact of fluctuations in consumption.

Moved by G. Smith and seconded by B. Young R78/2015-CES

THAT the Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED.

Carried. c) Status of Reserves and Reserve Funds – June 2015

Report No. CES-11-2015-3

Moved by D. Furniss and seconded by B. Young R79/2015-CES

THAT Report No. CES-11-2015-3, Status of Reserves and Reserve Funds – June 2015, BE RECEIVED. AND THAT financing BE AMENDED as outlined in the following table:

Carried.

d) Establishing a Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund Report No. CES-11-2015-4 In answer to a question regarding the District’s contribution in the administration of the fund, Ms. Moore advised that the Community Services department would be involved in the applicant screening and selection process in addition to the disbursement of the funds.

Moved by B. Young and seconded by D. Furniss R80/2015-CES

THAT a by-law BE ESTABLISHED to create a reserve fund to be designated as the Gateway Homes Muskoka Fund (the “Fund”); AND THAT funds held within the Fund BE USED for the purpose of delivering a charitable sector/municipal government partnership affordable housing program; AND THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka BE AUTHORIZED to enter into letters of agreement for the management and distribution of the funds with the Toronto United Church Council (TUCC) and Gateway Homes Muskoka as may be required; AND THAT the terms of the letters of agreement BE SATISFACTORY to the Commissioners of Corporate and Emergency Services and Community Services, and the District Solicitor; AND THAT the District Chair and Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the letters of agreement on behalf of The District Municipality of Muskoka.

Carried. NEW BUSINESS a) Contracted Work – Removal of Budget Estimates on Pilot Basis

Ms. Stevens advised that at a recent Muskoka Treasurers’ meeting, they discussed the merits of not providing budget estimates by project when producing the budget documents as it was felt that this may enable a more competitive process and possibly save taxpayer dollars. Ms. Stevens suggested that subject to being able to address the need to be transparent, we might consider doing this on a pilot basis for certain roads projects. In response to a question regarding the need to have that information available if requested, Ms. Stevens advised that she would provide more on that.

ADJOURNMENT

Moved by G. Smith and seconded by B. Young P81/2015-CES

THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee adjourns to meet again on Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. or at the call of the Chair.

Carried.

The meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m. _________________________________ District Clerk


Corporate and Emergency Services Committee FROM: Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Corporate and Emergency Services Department Operating Budget

Variance Report and Corporate Summary – June 30, 2015 REPORT NO: CES-11-2015-1 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report and Corporate Summary as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED. ORIGIN Policy AD:52 Operating Budget Administration requires the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services to provide Corporate and Emergency Services Committee, the other Standing Committees and Council with a written status report on the yearly budgets on a quarterly basis. This report highlights significant budget variances for the Tax Supported Operating Budget. ANALYSIS Attached to this report are schedules that outline the significant budget variances for the period ending June 30, 2015. The schedules provide an overall department view as well as a breakdown for the departments by major object and by program net levy along with a brief narrative description of the variances. The Tax Supported Operating Variance Report by Object shows the year-to-date (YTD)

actuals ending June 30, 2014 and the annual budget for 2014, YTD actual ending June 30, 2015 and the annual budget for 2015. The next two columns compare the YTD actuals to the annual budget in terms of dollars remaining in the budget and the percentage of budget spent. The final two columns indicate projected annual variance and comments.


Page 1

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Corporate and Emergency Services and Non-Program There is an overall unfavourable variance forecast for this department of $100,000 based on the following: As per Report CES-4-2015-4, a Communications Officer was budgeted starting in May 2015. The start date for the successful candidate is September 8, 2015 and due to this delay, there will be a favourable variance of approximately $30,000. In addition, there is rate and vacancy gapping within the Continuous Improvement Unit which is expected to result in savings of $20,000. Fines Revenue within the Provincial Offences operating budget has been under budget for the last few years, but due to increased ticket volume this account was expected to be on budget in the first quarter report. Unfortunately, revenue has not increased at the same rate as the ticket volume and an unfavourable variance of $150,000 is forecast for year-end. Corporate Summary Finance prepared four operating budget variance reports related to the general tax levy. This section serves to summarize the high level variances in those reports and provide the link to the individual Standing Committee reports.

Department Report Number Net Levy Variance

Favourable/ (Unfavourable)

Corporate & Emergency Services and Non-Program

Included in this report ($100,000)

Public Works – including Administration, Transportation – Roads, Port Carling Locks and Environment General

PW-12-2015-1 ($573,000)

Community Services CS-10-2015-1 ($5,100) Planning & Economic Development PED-11-2015-2 0 TOTAL ($678,100)

This projected unfavourable variance represents 0.6% of total expenditures and 1% of the net levy for the entire tax supported operating budget. There are three main drivers for the variances in the second quarter:

1. POA Fines Revenue is below target as noted above.

2. Winter Control costs are projected to be over budget due to weather conditions during the first quarter of 2015 by $605,000. Public Works staff have reviewed the Transportation budget and deferred or curtailed costs in order to reduce this unfavourable variance $32,000. Staff have indicated that a reserve contribution is likely necessary to fund this unfavourable variance and will make a recommendation in the September variance report. – Report No. PW-12-2015-1

Page 2

https://muskoka.civicweb.net/document/25510/CES-4-2015-4%20-%20Enhancing%20District%20Communication%20to%20Muskokas%20Residents.pdf

3. Ontario Works caseloads are higher than originally budgeted for 2015. The budget anticipated a 1% increase in caseload based on the first half of 2014. To date in 2015, the actual caseload is 4.6% higher than 2014 and 3.6% higher than the budget. As a result, an unfavourable variance in the net levy of $5,100 is projected for year-end. This estimate will change if the caseload increases or decreases throughout the year. – Report No. CS-10-2015-1

Other significant budgeted provisions such as supplementary taxes and write-offs along with year-end adjustments are not known until well into the fourth quarter, or in some cases, several months into the subsequent year. Corporately, staff will continue to review discretionary spending in the last four months of the year and review budgeted reserve transactions to offset unfavourable variances at year-end. Management will provide an update in the next quarterly report. COMMUNICATIONS Operating Budget Variance Reports are submitted to the Standing Committees and Council on a quarterly basis for results as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st of each year. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The status report on the Tax Supported Operating Budget supports the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 2. Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountability through



Page 3

TS Variance by Object Committee-CES-NP

Corporate & Emergency Services Run Date: 8/28/15 8:41 AM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Personnel 3,148,847 6,547,783 3,307,613 7,083,060 3,775,447 46.7% 50,000 Projected favourable variance for Administration/CAO and CIU departments due to rate and vacancy gapping.

Employee Related Expenses 129,780 424,356 127,994 377,948 249,954 33.9% Timing variance for Conferences and Courses scheduled for the remainder of the year, as well as Safety Equipment for Ambulance Services.

Materials & Supplies 671,527 1,340,018 577,492 1,289,797 712,305 44.8% Timing variance due to the majority of Fleet Fuel costs to be incurred in the third quarter.

Purchased Services 13,167,960 24,437,973 13,253,877 25,949,028 12,695,151 51.1% On budget.Transfer To Others 721,992 1,835,400 1,022,225 2,099,900 1,077,675 48.7% Slightly under budget due to seasonality of Ambulance Area

Services for Fire First Response.Minor Capital 4,215 48,500 17,461 27,000 9,539 64.7% Timing variance for Facility Services work at 70 Pine Street.

Total Operating Costs 17,844,321 34,634,030 18,306,662 36,826,733 18,520,071 49.7% 50,000Finance Charges/Reserves

Finance Charges 8,352 75,550 15,151 73,550 58,399 20.6% Timing variance as internal debt repayments to be recorded in December.

Reserves 786,061 1,572,121 643,650 1,237,300 593,650 52.0% Transfer to Reserve Funds on budget. Transfer from Corporate Reserve will be recorded when expenditure is incurred.

Total Finance Charges/Reserves 794,413 1,647,671 658,801 1,310,850 652,049 50.3%Net Internal Service Charges

Fleet (950,982) (2,013,393) (933,471) (2,064,250) (1,130,779) 45.2% Timing variance - forecast to be on budget for year-end.Insurance 81,005 162,009 79,696 159,392 79,696 50.0% On budget.Support Services (1,509,349) (2,983,120) (1,562,989) (3,115,980) (1,552,991) 50.2% On budget.Total Net Internal Service Charges (2,379,326) (4,834,504) (2,416,764) (5,020,838) (2,604,074) 48.1%


Grants (2,602,433) (5,198,995) (2,681,631) (5,399,350) (2,717,719) 49.7% On budget.


Page 4


Corporate & Emergency Services Run Date: 8/28/15 8:41 AM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




User Fees (97,209) (278,976) (54,568) (281,357) (226,789) 19.4% Variance is for Facilities Fees charged to Housing Corporations, which is reflected as a recovery under Personnel in actuals.

Fines/Penalties (485,756) (1,284,800) (464,095) (1,134,800) (670,705) 40.9% (150,000) Although POA ticket volume from fines is up, revenue continues to be below budget. This revenue risk was identified within the 2015 budget.

Service Charge Municipal (588,339) (1,078,765) (624,288) (1,143,641) (519,353) 54.6% Additional revenue is from Area Municipalities for Councillor Orientation sessions and ITS charges to Areas that are offsetting expenditures under Materials & Supplies.

Supplementary Taxes (3) Other (5,086) (32,500) (6,632) (32,500) (25,868) 20.4% Timing variance for Energy Management Rebate for solar PV

system.Total Revenues (3,778,826) (7,874,036) (3,831,214) (7,991,648) (4,160,434) 47.9% (150,000)

Total Net Levy 12,480,582 23,573,161 12,717,485 25,125,097 12,407,612 50.6% (100,000)

Page 5


Non-Program Run Date: 8/28/15 8:41 AM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual




Personnel (264,000) (200,000) (200,000) 0.0% Offsetting savings are reflected throughout the operating budgets. Corporately on target to achieve the budgeted savings.

Employee Related Expenses 38 Purchased Services 705,952 725,509 784,255 809,000 24,745 96.9% Timing variance for payment of full Insurance Premium, as

well as full Consultant budget spent.Transfer To Others 10,000 10,000 Total Operating Costs 715,990 471,509 784,255 609,000 (175,255) 128.8%

Finance Charges/ReservesFinance Charges 137,552 316,100 25,958 359,000 333,042 7.2% Timing variance for Tax Writeoffs that coincide with

Supplementary Taxes to be recorded over remainder of the year.


Net Internal Service ChargesInsurance (370,254) (740,509) (411,796) (823,100) (411,304) 50.0% On budget.Support Services 19,253 38,560 19,655 39,350 19,695 49.9% On budget.Total Net Internal Service Charges (351,001) (701,949) (392,141) (783,750) (391,609) 50.0%


Grants (464,100) (928,200) (371,300) (742,600) (371,300) 50.0% On budget.Supplementary Taxes (549) (495,000) (543,400) (543,400) 0.0% Timing variance for Supplementary Tax runs and reporting to

occur later in the year. Investment Income (93,625) (360,000) (198,049) (360,000) (161,951) 55.0% On budget for year-end.

Total Revenues (558,274) (1,783,200) (569,349) (1,646,000) (1,076,651) 34.6%Total Net Levy 2,099,181 2,612,288 2,001,087 2,842,978 841,891 70.4% 0


Page 6

TS Variance Net Levy Summary-CES-NP

Corporate & Emergency Services Run Date: 8/27/15 3:23 PM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual



Corporate & Emergency ServicesElected Officials 243,238 547,366 265,389 521,886 256,497 50.9% On budget.Administration/CAO 299,341 592,015 301,114 648,291 347,177 46.4% 30,000 Projected favourable variance is due to delay in hiring

Communications Officer. Continuous Improvement Unit 0 0 148,978 320,710 171,732 46.5% 20,000 Under budget due to Personnel rate gapping, Training and

Membership fees. Projected favourable variance mainly for Personnel vacancy and rate gapping.

Corporate Administration 245,874 527,540 247,065 535,350 288,285 46.2% Timing variance for Training and Consultant costs to be incurred over remainder of year.

Human Resources 217,537 541,570 207,659 549,760 342,101 37.8% Timing variance for Training, Office Supplies and Consultant costs to be incurred over remainder of year.

Finance Services 44,310 278,811 35,478 232,779 197,301 15.2% Timing variance for Training, Consultant and Audit costs to be incurred over remainder of year.

Facility Services 338,440 526,824 284,564 484,714 200,150 58.7% Timing variance for seasonality of Utilities and Grounds Maintenance snow removal.

Information Technology Services 53,269 30,493 106,617 9,496 (97,121) 1,122.8% Timing variance due to the payment for Software Maintenance made in the first half of the year. Forecast to be on budget for year-end.

Office Services (11,575) 18,670 (10,632) (7,790) 2,842 136.5% Timing variance. Forecast to be on budget for year-end.Legal Services 266,645 551,090 278,361 578,550 300,189 48.1% On budget.Fleet Operations 42,539 (20,000) 58,718 (48,738) (107,456) (120.5%) Timing variance. Forecast to be on budget for year-end.Property Assessment Services 1,814,393 2,419,200 1,196,855 2,393,800 1,196,945 50.0% On budget.Veterinarian Assistance 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 0 100.0% On budget.Fire 438 800 438 800 362 54.8% On budget.Police Services 5,400,125 10,899,442 6,117,423 12,027,019 5,909,596 50.9% On budget.Provincial Offences (144,456) (554,380) (130,178) (386,500) (256,322) 33.7% (150,000) Even though ticket volume from fines is up, revenue has not

increased as forecasted.Community Emergency Plan 50,331 115,103 52,629 115,300 62,671 45.6% Forecast to be on budget for year-end.Health Unit 699,492 1,420,200 703,410 1,407,000 703,590 50.0% On budget.Ambulance Services 2,866,779 5,275,517 2,650,600 5,339,770 2,689,170 49.6% On budget.Hospital Financing 50,962 400,000 200,097 400,000 199,903 50.0% On budget.

Total Corporate & Emergency Services 12,480,582 23,573,161 12,717,485 25,125,097 12,407,612 50.6% (100,000)


Page 7

TS Variance Net Levy Summary-CES-NP

Non-Program Run Date: 8/28/15 8:37 AM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual



Non-ProgramFinancial Services 2,563,830 4,035,488 2,372,387 4,128,978 1,756,591 57.5% Timing variance as the full Insurance Premium is recorded in

first quarter and Investment Income entries vary throughout the year. Gapping provision savings are reflected throughout corporation's departmental Personnel accounts.

Unconditional Grants (464,100) (928,200) (371,300) (742,600) (371,300) 50.0% On budget.Supplementary Taxes (549) (495,000) 0 (543,400) (543,400) 0.0% Timing variance for revenues that are recorded later in the

year as submitted by Area Municipalities.

Total Non-Program 2,099,181 2,612,288 2,001,087 2,842,978 841,891 70.4%


Page 8


Corporate and Emergency Services Committee FROM: Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report – June 30, 2015 REPORT NO: CES-11-2015-2 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report as at June 30, 2015 BE RECEIVED. ORIGIN Policy AD:52 Operating Budget Administration requires the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services to provide Corporate and Emergency Services Committee, the other Standing Committees and Council with a written status report on the yearly budgets on a quarterly basis. This report highlights significant budget variances for the Rate Supported Operating Budget. ANALYSIS Attached to this report are schedules that outline the significant budget variances for the period ending June 30, 2015. The schedules provide a summary of the water, wastewater and solid waste management services by major object and by program net levy along with a brief description of the variances. The Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object shows the year-to-date (YTD)


Page 1

The second summary, using the same format as the first summary, shows the bottom line net levy for each program/division within the department (Solid Waste only).

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Water and Wastewater Rate Supported Operating Budgets Overall, the Water and Wastewater Rate Supported Operating Budgets are expected to have a shortfall of $245,000. The consumption volume is consistent with 2014 for the first six months of 2015, but lower than the budget. As a result, a revenue shortfall of $245,000 is projected. Staff will review the Water and Wastewater operating budgets to assess whether any costs can be deferred or curtailed in order to mitigate this unfavourable variance and provide an update in the September quarterly variance report. Expenditures are all within budget. Any variance is due to the timing of expenses and is not expected to result in any significant year-end surplus or deficit. Solid Waste Management Rate Supported Operating Budget Similar to Water and Wastewater operations, expenditures and revenues within the Solid Waste Management Rate Supported Operating Budget are influenced significantly by the seasonal nature of the operations with the majority of the variances identified to-date due to timing. Personnel expenditures are projected to be under budget by $33,000 due to staff time being allocated to capital projects in 2015. Revenues are also impacted by seasonal operations. Tipping fee revenues are slightly lower than the same period last year, and are expected to result in a shortfall of $100,000 by year-end. However, this unfavourable variance is offset by the following favourable revenue variances. First, the recycle rebate is expected to exceed budget by $30,000 by year-end due to improving market rates. Second, the Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) grant has been confirmed and is $97,758 above budget for 2015. The sum of these figures is a net favourable variance for revenue of $27,758. A net year-end surplus of $60,758 is expected at this time for Solid Waste. COMMUNICATIONS Operating Budget Variance Reports are submitted to the Standing Committees and Council on a quarterly basis for results as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st of each year. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The status report on the Rate Supported Operating Budget supports the following goal as outlined in the District’s Strategic Priorities:

Page 2

2. Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountability through the budget process, public reporting of budget results, the corporate credit rating and debt reduction.


Page 3






Personnel 1,961,107 3,798,245 2,479,554 4,911,300 2,431,746 50.5% On budget.Employee Related Expenses 54,178 102,000 54,666 119,000 64,334 45.9% Timing Variance due to course expenditures not yet

incurred.Materials & Supplies 1,866,094 4,070,770 2,099,232 4,090,935 1,991,703 51.3% Timing Variance due to initial outlay for water meters,

seasonal utilities costs, and interim property taxes, and these are offset in part by equipment repair parts and operating supplies costs not yet incurred.

Purchased Services 787,292 1,656,690 837,687 1,736,425 898,738 48.2% Timing Variance primarily for subcontractor and biosolids disposal costs not yet incurred, which are offset in part by flushing/video work that is completed for the year.




Net Internal Service ChargesFleet 249,986 474,490 226,126 448,850 222,724 50.4% On budget.Insurance 155,200 310,400 176,850 353,700 176,850 50.0% On budget.Support Services 979,731 2,086,840 461,352 920,710 459,358 50.1% On budget.Total Net Internal Service Charges 1,384,917 2,871,730 864,328 1,723,260 858,932 50.2%




Application Fees/Permits (30,460) (55,000) (30,415) (55,000) (24,585) 55.3%


Page 4









Total Water and Wastewater Levy 5,337,783 10,501,446 5,601,121 10,850,261 5,249,140 51.6% (245,000)

Page 5






Personnel 1,125,125 1,956,269 1,308,035 2,631,900 1,323,865 49.7% On budget.Employee Related Expenses 28,017 60,250 34,397 70,250 35,853 49.0% On budget.Materials & Supplies 879,115 1,849,470 993,884 1,833,350 839,466 54.2% Timing Variance due to initial outlay for water meters and

interim property taxes.Purchased Services 218,386 607,160 264,159 548,425 284,266 48.2% On budget.Total Operating Costs 2,250,643 4,473,149 2,600,475 5,083,925 2,483,450 51.2%

Finance Charges/ReservesFinance Charges 1,347,481 2,964,723 1,322,470 2,916,151 1,593,681 45.3% Timing Variance due to principal and interest payments

which vary throughout the year.Reserves 1,300,000 2,600,000 1,361,500 2,723,000 1,361,500 50.0% On budget.Total Finance Charges/Reserves 2,647,481 5,564,723 2,683,970 5,639,151 2,955,181 47.6%




projected to be below target at year-end. Timing variance is due to seasonality of consumption which peaks during summer months.

Application Fees/Permits (10,310) (50,000) (30,365) (50,000) (19,635) 60.7% Timing Variance for connection fees. Local Improvement Charges (100,820) (83,950) (83,950) Timing Variance due to Local Improvement levies which are

billed in August.Supplementary Taxes (19,000) (34,600) (34,600) Timing Variance due to supplementary taxes which are

billed in December.Total Revenue Sources (3,648,056) (8,099,990) (3,689,434) (8,169,467) (4,480,033) 45.2% (170,000)


Page 6






Total Revenues (3,648,056) (8,099,990) (3,689,434) (8,169,467) (4,480,033) 45.2% (170,000)Total Water Levy 1,976,772 3,369,282 2,040,979 3,445,269 1,404,290 59.2% (170,000)

Page 7






Personnel 835,982 1,841,976 1,171,519 2,279,400 1,107,881 51.4% On budget.Employee Related Expenses 26,161 41,750 20,269 48,750 28,481 41.6% Timing Variance due to course expenditures not yet

incurred.Materials & Supplies 986,979 2,221,300 1,105,348 2,257,585 1,152,237 49.0% Timing Variance due to equipment repair parts, operating

supplies and bulk chemical costs yet to be incurred, offset in part by seasonal utility costs.

Purchased Services 568,906 1,049,530 573,528 1,188,000 614,472 48.3% Timing Variance due to completion of flushing/video work, and is offset by subcontractor, lab test and biosolids disposal costs not yet incurred.








Application Fees/Permits (20,150) (5,000) (50) (5,000) (4,950) 1.0% Timing Variance due to connection fees; offset by favourable variance under Water connection fees.


Page 8









Total Wastewater Levy 3,361,011 7,132,164 3,560,142 7,404,992 3,844,850 48.1% (75,000)

Page 9






Personnel 531,071 1,164,766 659,040 1,513,700 854,660 43.5% 33,000 Favourable variance forecast due to labour charged to capital projects as well as vacancy gapping.

Employee Related Expenses 11,571 18,650 9,538 19,850 10,312 48.1% On budget.Materials & Supplies 96,139 212,285 72,251 226,065 153,814 32.0% Timing Variance due to Operating Supplies expenditures not

yet incurred.Purchased Services 3,841,645 8,698,152 3,881,766 8,854,929 4,973,163 43.8% Timing Variance primarily due to Consultant and

Subcontractor costs not yet incurred. Transfer To Others 32,064 1,452,664 6,540 1,422,439 1,415,899 0.5% Timing Variance due to payment to area municipalities.Minor Capital 6,492 50,000 5,000 5,000 Timing Variance due to expenditures not yet incurred.Total Operating Costs 4,518,982 11,596,517 4,629,135 12,041,983 7,412,848 38.4% 33,000

Finance Charges/ReservesFinance Charges 31,021 223,690 7,111 243,940 236,829 2.9% Timing Variance due to Principal and Interest charges

recorded later in the year.Reserves 750,000 1,500,000 750,000 1,500,000 750,000 50.0% On budget.Total Finance Charges/Reserves 781,021 1,723,690 757,111 1,743,940 986,829 43.4%

Net Internal Service ChargesFleet 399,407 840,790 373,806 868,860 495,054 43.0% Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations.Insurance 5,350 10,700 6,250 12,500 6,250 50.0% On budget.Support Services 382,172 741,290 223,183 445,010 221,827 50.2% On budget.Total Net Internal Service Charges 786,929 1,592,780 603,239 1,326,370 723,131 45.5%


Grants (443,536) (1,065,000) (549,649) (1,041,100) (491,451) 52.8% 97,758 Favourable variance for Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) funding.

User Fees (1,278,769) (2,940,499) (1,242,265) (2,845,707) (1,603,442) 43.7% (70,000) Landfill waste tipping fees revenues are slightly below the prior year and a shortfall is projected of $100,000. Recycling rebate has a projected surplus of $30,000 as a result of increases in market rates in recent months.


Page 10






Supplementary Taxes (131) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) Timing Variance due to Supplementary Taxes billed in December.

Total Revenues (1,722,436) (4,105,499) (1,791,914) (3,986,807) (2,194,893) 44.9% 27,758Total Solid Waste Levy 4,364,496 10,807,488 4,197,571 11,125,486 6,927,915 37.7% 60,758

Page 11

RS Variance by Program

Solid Waste Management 06 Fund Run Date : 9/04/15 3:38 PM2014 2014 2015 2015 ProjectedJune Annual June Annual Budget Percent Annual



District General 1,228,005 3,879,106 1,176,849 3,960,742 2,783,893 29.7% Timing Variance due to payment to area municipalities.Depots 76,954 202,514 72,203 206,919 134,716 34.9% Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations.Diversion (49,540) 79,105 (125,657) 97,817 223,474 (128.5%) 127,758 Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations as well as

Subcontractor work, which occurs in the fall. Favourable variance for WDO funding of $97,758 and for Recycling rebate of $30,000.

Curbside 1,751,914 3,518,710 1,826,952 3,636,440 1,809,488 50.2% On budget.Landfill Sites (241,171) (634,639) (283,748) (575,939) (292,191) 49.3% (67,000) Timing variance, primarily due to Consultant costs for

Closed Landfills not yet incurred. Unfavourable variance forecast of $100,000 due to a decrease in landfill tipping fees offset by a $33,000 favourable variance in Personnel due to labour charged to capital projects and vacancy gapping.

Transfer Stations 930,159 2,107,187 877,311 2,071,792 1,194,481 42.3% Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations.Remote Bins 313,535 881,365 308,722 924,730 616,008 33.4% Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations.Kitchen Organics 354,640 774,140 345,939 802,985 457,046 43.1% Timing Variance due to seasonality of operations.Total Solid Waste Management 06 Fund 4,364,496 10,807,488 4,198,571 11,125,486 6,926,915 37.7% 60,758

Rate Supported Operating Variance Net Levy Summary

Page 12


Corporate and Emergency Services Committee FROM: Sharon Donald Director of Budgets and Financial Planning DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Status of Reserves and Reserve Funds – June 2015 REPORT NO: CES-11-2015-3 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT Report No. CES-11-2015-3, Status of Reserves and Reserve Funds – June 2015, BE RECEIVED. AND THAT financing BE AMENDED as outlined in the following table:

Project

Current Budget

Proposed Budget

Proposed Amendment

413018 BB Beaumont Dr SPS 1,430,000 1,430,000 0Funding SourcesSustainable Infrastructure 1,400,000 1,119,825 (280,175)Environmental Reserve 30,000 30,000 0Grants (OCIF) 0 280,175 280,175

Total Sources of Funding 1,430,000 1,430,000 0

413101 BB Dill St SPS Upgrades 1,280,000 1,280,000 0Funding SourcesSustainable Infrastructure 1,000,000 751,540 (248,460)Wastewater Capital Reserve 250,000 250,000 0Environmental Reserve 30,000 30,000 0Grants (OCIF) 0 248,460 248,460


412018 BALA STP Upgrade 415.777 1,600,000 1,600,000 0Funding SourcesEnvironmental Reserve 1,600,000 1,071,365 (528,635)Sustainable Infrastructure 0 528,635 528,635


Page 1

ORIGIN In 2005, Council adopted Policy AD:51 Capital Budget Preparation, Monitoring and Reporting. The revised policy requires staff to submit formal reports to the Standing Committees and Council on the status of the District’s capital program as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st. The purpose of this report is to highlight material variances within the reserves and reserve funds. ANALYSIS The Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – June 2015, with the exception of Planning and Economic Development, was included on each Standing Committee agenda the week of August 24, 2015. The Tax Supported favourable variance of $87,298 and the Rate Supported favourable variance of $282,869 were included in Report No. CES-10-2015-4. These impacts are reflected against the respective reserve funds. The project specific impacts were reflected on the Standing Committee reports. Schedule A This schedule summarizes the $82,823,685 cash balance of the District’s Reserves and Reserve Funds as at June 30, 2015, including transfers from the operating budget, receipts from development fees, grants, capital projects financed and transfers to the operating budget recorded to June 30, 2015. Schedule B Schedule B summarizes the projected balances of $65,004,217 in the District’s Reserves and Reserve Funds as at December 31, 2015. Starting with the cash balance as at June 30, 2015, commitments on open projects are deducted and the balance of the year’s transfers are added. The amendment in financing applies Sustainable Infrastructure funds to project 412018. Due to the receipt of OCIF funding for projects 413018 and 413101, Sustainable Infrastructure funds are available. In addition, CS-10-2015-8 creates project 710033. This commitment has been included in this report. It is important to note that the projected operating budget variances for year-end have not yet been finalized and have therefore not been included in this report. Of further note is that as at June 30, 2015 on average, 15% of the annual budget for Development Fees has been received. The following table details the 2014 and 2015 receipts to June 30th by fund.

2014 2015 Roads 32% 15% Hauled Sewage 27% 16% Water 18% 14% Wastewater 15% 15%

The total favourable variance to the 2015 Revised Budget is approximately $3M. The following table summarizes the variances by source:

Page 2

https://muskoka.civicweb.net/document/26276/CES-8-2015-3%20-%20Capital%20Project%20Quarterly%20Variance%20Report%20-%20Corporate%20Summary%20-%20March%2031,%202015.pdf

Schedule C Schedule C reflects the impact on planned funding sources in terms of own source funding and external funding due to results reported in the Tax Supported Capital Project Quarterly Variance Reports. Schedule D Schedule D reflects the impact on planned funding sources in terms of own source funding and external funding due to results reported in the Rate Supported Capital Project Quarterly Variance Reports. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Status of Reserves and Reserve Funds supports the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 2. Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountability through


Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Sharon Donald, CPA, CMA Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Director of Budgets and Commissioner of Finance and Financial Planning Corporate Services

Source of Variance

(Increase) / Decrease Use of

Reserve Description

2014 Reserve Adjustments completed after budget document prepared $653,893

Mainly due to transfers for Policing Credit ($402K) and Employee Benefits Reserve ($171K)

Year-end transfers related to 2014 Operating surplus/shortfall $730,955

Due to the difference between the projected operating shorftalls estimated in the 2015 budget document totalling $1.55M and the actual operating net deficit at the completion of the audit totalling $825K.

December 2014 Interest Variance $94,114 Variance due to year-end fund balancesSubtotal of 2014 Reserve Variances $1,478,962

Deferred Projects $851,601

Projects closed in current budget year, but under review for next budget cycle as reported within the quarterly capital variance reports.

Current Year Variance ($33,503)Temporary variance due to construction budget allocation in 2016 with expected completion on budget overall

Financing Amendments $1,470,152

Total Amendments in December 2014 ($372,247), March 2015 ($841,082) and June ($256,823) quarterly capital variance reports (excluding deferred projects noted above).

Committee Amendments between variance reports ($842,142)

Mainly due to Projects 412010 Port Carling STP Expansion, 412030 PS STP Rehab, 432027 PS WTP Rehab, net of cancellation of 360019 Woodlot Development Area

Minor Variances $100,450Subtotal of 2015 Reserve Variances $1,546,558Total Variance to Revised 2015 Budget $3,025,520

2015 Reserve Variances

2014 Reserve Variances

Page 3

Schedule A

Opening Cash Balance

January 2015Transfer from

Operating

Development Fees / Grants /

Donations / Sale of Assets

Interest Earned Total Inflows

Capital Projects Financed

Transfer to Operating DC Deficit Total Outflows

Closing Cash Balance June

2015Capital FundsCorporate Capital 6,619,235 448,750 448,750 584 (21,750) (21,166) 7,046,820 Computer Equipment 100,721 60,000 60,000 (24,436) (24,436) 136,285 Fleet Capital 1,283,020 389,375 389,375 (27,860) (27,860) 1,644,536 Ambulance Capital 1,490,786 275,000 275,000 (376,192) (376,192) 1,389,595 Hospital Financing 237,218 200,000 200,000 (300,000) (300,000) 137,218 Roads Capital 9,822,384 7,700,000 7,700,000 (4,802,469) (4,802,469) 12,719,915 Active Transportation 800,522 0 0 800,522 Port Carling Locks 555,788 125,000 125,000 (64,768) (64,768) 616,020 Environment General 5,260,963 1,250,000 1,250,000 (609,333) (609,333) 5,901,630 Pines Capital 1,719,224 250,000 250,000 (1,015) (1,015) 1,968,209 Pines Community Support Fund 185,034 7,947 7,947 (3,716) (592) (4,308) 188,672 Community Housing Capital 3,235,031 100,000 100,000 (774) (774) 3,334,257 Planning Capital 764,180 50,000 50,000 (3,137) (3,137) 811,043 Airport Capital 2,974,899 250,000 250,000 (1,562,048) (1,562,048) 1,662,851 Debt Reduction 10,552,223 1,979,329 1,979,329 0 12,531,552 Wastewater Capital 7,799,906 1,165,500 1,165,500 (1,654,048) (1,654,048) 7,311,358 Water Capital 5,873,187 1,361,500 1,361,500 (307,889) (307,889) 6,926,798 Solid Waste Capital 3,042,803 750,000 750,000 (457,376) (457,376) 3,335,426 Sustainable Infrastructure 1,781,196 0 (966,679) (966,679) 814,516 Subtotal Capital Funds 64,098,320 16,354,454 7,947 0 16,362,401 (10,861,155) (322,342) 0 (11,183,498) 69,277,222

Development Charge FundsRoads 182,140 226,903 226,903 (261,715) (261,715) 147,327 Hauled Sewage 34,377 31,743 31,743 28,128 28,128 94,248 Water 483,703 95,641 95,641 0 579,344 Wastewater 45,072 147,017 147,017 (108,409) (108,409) 83,679 Subtotal Development Charge Funds 745,291 0 501,303 0 501,303 (341,996) 0 0 (341,996) 904,598

Operating FundsGeneral TS Stabilization 3,450,272 0 0 3,450,272 WSIB 2,581,454 140,853 11 140,865 (46,057) (46,057) 2,676,262 Self-Insured Employee Benefit 1,784,987 0 0 1,784,987 Corporate Working Funds 2,508,813 0 0 2,508,813 Affordable Housing Initiatives 1,045,226 0 0 1,045,226 Muskoka Services Investment 360,343 0 0 360,343 Solid Waste Operating 815,961 0 0 815,961 Subtotal Operating Funds 12,547,056 140,853 0 11 140,865 0 (46,057) 0 (46,057) 12,641,864

Total $77,390,667 $16,495,307 $509,250 $11 $17,004,569 ($11,203,151) ($368,399) $0 ($11,571,551) $82,823,685

Reserves and Reserve Fund Cash Balances - June 2015

Page 4

Schedule B

Closing Cash Balance June

2015

Commitments on Open Projects

Balance of Year Transfers Net of Surplus /

(Deficit) Projection

Impact of TS Capital Project

Quarterly Variance - June

2015

Impact of RS Capital Project

Quarterly Variance - June

2015

Projected December 2015

Balance

December 2015 (Budget

Document)

Variance Favourable /

(Unfavourable) to 2015 Budget

RevisedCapital FundsCorporate Capital 7,046,820 (927,101) (1,457,780) 45,000 4,706,939 4,631,911 75,028Computer Equipment 136,285 (82,964) 60,000 113,321 113,509 (188)Fleet Capital 1,644,536 (186,000) 389,375 1,847,911 1,816,518 31,393Ambulance Capital 1,389,595 (69,508) 309,972 65,329 1,695,388 1,627,439 67,949Hospital Financing 137,218 0 (124,366) 12,852 15,379 (2,527)Roads Capital 12,719,915 (11,590,729) 7,878,678 (93,440) 8,914,424 8,982,818 (68,394)Active Transportation 800,522 0 (66,219) 734,303 817,973 (83,670)Port Carling Locks 616,020 (218,553) 136,434 0 533,901 537,999 (4,098)Environment General 5,901,630 (3,571,954) 1,301,501 0 72,064 3,703,241 2,705,117 998,124Pines Capital 1,968,209 0 290,300 2,258,509 2,255,210 3,299Pines Community Support Fund 188,672 0 (15,963) 172,709 158,769 13,940Community Housing Capital 3,334,257 (592,010) 175,006 100,000 3,017,253 2,976,748 40,505Planning Capital 811,043 (140,400) 65,728 736,371 735,014 1,357Airport Capital 1,662,851 (1,805,908) 292,439 149,382 144,084 5,298Debt Reduction 12,531,552 (3,068,000) 2,778,366 12,241,918 11,507,937 733,981Wastewater Capital 7,311,358 (4,897,664) 1,264,687 79,690 3,758,071 3,175,015 583,056Water Capital 6,926,798 (3,219,867) 1,462,538 75,017 5,244,486 4,909,539 334,947Solid Waste Capital 3,335,426 (5,508,822) 2,797,694 30,000 654,298 177,211 477,087Sustainable Infrastructure 814,516 (2,477,923) 1,755,441 (29,302) 62,732 1,087,425 (1,024,693)Subtotal Capital Funds 69,277,222 (38,357,403) 19,293,831 116,889 227,469 50,558,009 48,375,615 2,182,394

Development Charge FundsRoads 147,327 (660,792) 1,206,128 7,065 699,728 564,667 135,061Hauled Sewage 94,248 (123,407) 169,407 0 140,248 55,272 84,976Water 579,344 (680,730) 587,650 3,100 489,364 408,041 81,323Wastewater 83,679 (625,867) 601,658 0 59,470 28,370 31,100Post Period Benefits - Water 0 (52,300) 0 52,300 0 0 0Post Period Benefits - Wastewater 0 (262,576) 262,576 0 0 0Subtotal Development Charge Funds 904,598 (2,405,672) 2,827,419 7,065 55,400 1,388,810 1,056,350 332,460

Operating FundsGeneral TS Stabilization 3,450,272 539,182 3,989,454 3,587,096 402,358WSIB 2,676,262 298,100 2,974,362 2,969,578 4,784Self-Insured Employee Benefit 1,784,987 38,169 1,823,156 1,662,391 160,765Corporate Working Funds 2,508,813 0 2,508,813 2,508,813 (0)Affordable Housing Initiatives 1,045,226 (333,370) 711,856 711,094 762Muskoka Services Investment 360,343 (60,000) (66,547) 233,796 293,155 (59,359)Solid Waste Operating 815,961 0 815,961 814,605 1,356Subtotal Operating Funds 12,641,864 (60,000) 475,534 0 0 13,057,398 12,546,732 510,666

Total $82,823,685 ($40,823,075) $22,596,784 $123,954 $282,869 $65,004,217 $61,978,697 $3,025,520

Reserves and Reserve Fund Projected Balances - June 2015

Page 5

Project NumberCorporate

CapitalAmbulance

Capital Roads Capital

Community Housing Capital DC Roads Fees-Misc Total

Roads311034 MR 117 from Paint Lk Bridge W 3.5 km 114,000 6,000 120,000311043 MR 17 from Oakwood Dr to Brydons Bay Rd 2.2 km 3,500 (3,500) 0311123 MR 2 from Hwy 11 to Big East River Bridge 2 km (32,375) (4,625) (37,000)313019 MR 169 Rehab CPR Overhead Bridge #169301 (20,000) (20,000)313022 MR 169 Rehab CNR Overhead Bridge #169306 (266,675) (266,675)313023 MR 169 Reline Culvert - Lk Joe Tributary 25,000 25,000313045 Culvert Replacement Program 2015 (25,000) (25,000)311167 MR 3 from HV/ML Bndry Northerly 3.6 km 108,110 5,690 113,800

Roads Subtotal - (Increase) / Decrease 0 0 (93,440) 0 7,065 (3,500) (89,875)

Corporate & Emergency Services 130324 Printer Replacement 45,000 45,000530018 Vehicles 2015 65,329 65,329

Corporate & Emergency Services Subtotal - (Increase) / Decrease 45,000 65,329 0 0 0 0 110,329

Community Services710026 Window & Door Repl - 22 Aubrey & 124 Alice 100,000 100,000

Community Services Subtotal - (Increase) / Decrease 0 0 0 100,000 0 0 100,000

Tax Supported Grand Total Impact on Financing 45,000 65,329 (93,440) 100,000 7,065 (3,500) 120,454Reserve Fund Impact - (Increase) / Decrease 123,954External Funding - (Increase) / Decrease (3,500)

Schedule CTax Supported

Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report - June 2015

Page 6

Project Number Water CapitalWastewater

CapitalSolid Waste

CapitalSustainable

InfrastructureEnvironment

General DC WaterDC Post Period Benefit - Water Grants Total

Water431022 BB 40m on Shaw at Ecclestone 420.705 50,000 50,000431116 BB Repair WM River Crossing at Wellington 25,017 25,017432015 MT WTP Rehabilitation 424.686 44,600 3,100 52,300 100,000

Water Subtotal - (Increase) / Decrease 75,017 0 0 44,600 0 3,100 52,300 0 175,017

Wastewater411110 HV MH Repairs 2014 10,690 10,690413009 HV Church St PS Upgrade 412.782 69,000 (73,902) 72,064 67,162

Wastewater Subtotal - (Increase) / Decrease 0 79,690 0 (73,902) 72,064 0 0 77,852

Solid Waste450039 Scrap Metal Mgmt Upgrades - Beiers Road 30,000 30,000

Solid Waste Subtotal - (Increase) / Decrease 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 30,000

Public Works - Rate Supported - (Increase) / Decrease 75,017 79,690 30,000 (29,302) 72,064 3,100 52,300 0 282,869Reserve Fund Impact - (Increase) / Decrease 282,869External Funding - (Increase) - Decrease 0

Public Works - Rate SupportedCapital Project Quarterly Variance Report - June 2015

Schedule D

Page 7


Corporate and Emergency Services Committee FROM: Heather Moore Director of Programs, Community Services DATE: September 21, 2015 SUBJECT: Establishing a Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund REPORT NO: CES-11-2015-4 ________________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT a by-law BE ESTABLISHED to create a reserve fund to be designated as the Gateway Homes Muskoka Fund (the “Fund”); AND THAT funds held within the Fund BE USED for the purpose of delivering a charitable sector/municipal government partnership affordable housing program; AND THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka BE AUTHORIZED to enter into letters of agreement for the management and distribution of the funds with the Toronto United Church Council (TUCC) and Gateway Homes Muskoka as may be required; AND THAT the terms of the letters of agreement BE SATISFACTORY to the Commissioners of Corporate and Emergency Services and Community Services, and the District Solicitor; AND THAT the District Chair and Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign the letters of agreement on behalf of The District Municipality of Muskoka. ORIGIN Through 2013, District Council authorized the creation of the Muskoka Affordable Housing Initiatives Program (MAHIP). One component of that program described a potential charitable sector/municipal government partnership, whereby funds donated by a philanthropic community member would be used to create an affordable housing down payment grant program, to be delivered by Community Services staff as part of their larger new affordable housing slate of programs. ANALYSIS Several years ago, a generous donation was made to the TUCC and a separate fund was established which is referred to as the TUCC Gateway Homes Muskoka fund. The Gateway Board of Directors explored several program delivery options, and has most recently determined that flowing funds to the District was desirable, in that Community Services staff are already

Page 1

engaged in successfully delivering a host of federal-provincial and locally funded affordable housing programs. In meetings with TUCC, it has been noted that the funds may only be released to certain organizations, for certain purposes. TUCC has indicated that they are prepared to put the transfer request forward to their Board of Directors with a recommendation that the funds be transferred to the District, if a by-law is prepared to establish the Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund (“Reserve Fund”) that meets the following criteria: • Monies held within the Reserve Fund will be used for the purpose of delivering a

charitable sector/municipal government partnership affordable housing program;

• Interest earned on the Reserve Fund will be at the same rate as other reserves at the District and will be payable to the Reserve Fund;

• Disbursements from the Reserve Fund will be initiated through recommendations from

the Gateway Homes Muskoka Advisory Committee, to The District Municipality of Muskoka Community Services Committee;

• Disbursements be used to increase affordable home ownership across the District of

Muskoka through initiatives Council may authorize from time to time, in accordance with the Advisory Committee, including program delivery costs;

• Additional charitable donations that may be forthcoming from other sources may be

accepted and deposited into the Reserve Fund. As noted above, it is anticipated that the Gateway Homes Muskoka Advisory Committee would make recommendations regarding annual allocations, program design, eligibility criteria, etc. to the Community Services Committee and subsequently to District Council, in a manner similar to the process already in place for the Pines Support Committee. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS At present, it is estimated that approximately $1.5 million resides in the TUCC fund. There is no impact to the net levy. Administrative costs incurred due to program delivery will be withdrawn from the Reserve Fund, as well as funds flowed directly to eligible program recipients, in accordance with the established by-law. COMMUNICATIONS This report will be forwarded to TUCC to provide background to their report to the TUCC Board of Directors, to Gateway Homes Muskoka and to the District of Muskoka Community Services Committee. Once specific programs are established, they will be publicly promoted. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Gateway Homes Muskoka Fund supports the following goal and strategy as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

Page 2




Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Heather Moore Director of Programs, Community Services Original signed by Original signed by Julie Stevens Rick Williams Commissioner of Corporate Commissioner of Community Services and Emergency Services

Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE: 1. THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES provided a copy of Resolution No. C-34-

18/09/15 regarding equal representation at the District Council table. (Received September 21, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO, and Legal department)

2. THE TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE provided a copy of Resolution No. 15-TC-176

regarding Syrian Refugee Crisis and an immediate and proactive “all-party” response to the unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis at both the Federal and Provincial levels of government. (Received September 21, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO and Finance department)

3. THE SIMCOE MUSKOKA DISTRICT HEALTH UNIT requested that Dr. Eric Hoskins,

the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care reconsider the resource allocation process for the public health sector, with a focus on resource sufficiency to meet the mandate of public health. (Received September 24, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO, and Finance department)

4. THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES provided a copy of Resolution No. COW-11-

22/09/15 regarding a request to not allow any blasting or excavation of any District owned lands in and or near the Muskoka Road No. 169 bridge in Bala, except for repairs. (Received October 8, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO, Finance, Public Works and Legal departments)

5. PREMIER WYNNE acknowledged receipt of Chair Klinck’s letter regarding hospital

services in Muskoka. (Received October 9, 2015) (Referred to the District Chair, CAO, and Finance, Public Works, Planning, Community Services, Legal, and Land Ambulance departments)

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 Fax (705) 645-5319 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code)

www.muskoka.on.ca

TO: Chair and Members Muskoka District Council

FROM: Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services

Debbie Crowder District Clerk

DATE: October 19, 2015

SUBJECT: Provincial Review of Municipal Legislation Municipal Act 2001, Municipal Conflict of Interest Act

REPORT NO: 14(2015)-1 ________________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Muskoka District Council endorses the ‘Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s (AMO) Submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Concerning the 2015 Municipal Act Five-year Review and Conflict of Interest Review’ dated September 8, 2015 (as attached);

AND THAT Muskoka District Council endorses the ‘Municipal Legislation Review Submission’ prepared by the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario (MFOA) dated October 2015 (as attached);

AND THAT Muskoka District Council recommends that the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to include a broad power to impose municipal income, sales and excise taxes in a shared arrangement with the Federal and Provincial governments;

AND THAT this resolution be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to complement and inform its current review of these major pieces of Provincial legislation.

ORIGIN

The Province recently initiated a review of several major pieces of legislation and solicited input from municipalities regarding:

• The Municipal Act, 2001• Municipal Conflict of Interest Act• City of Toronto Act, 2007• Municipal Elections Act

Page 1

http://www.muskoka.on.ca/

ANALYSIS The District’s review was concentrated on the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and the initial deadline for comments was extended from August 7th to October 31st. The District Solicitor and District Clerk attended a consultation session in June hosted by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The session was one of many sessions held by the Ministry in order to gather input on potential changes to the pieces of legislation currently under review. AMO SUBMISSION The attached submission by AMO touched on several of the items that are of importance to the District, particularly the following: Municipal Act

• More diversified tools for increasing the revenue base (i.e. similar taxing authority that resides in the City of Toronto Act);

• Need for a better definition of what constitutes a “meeting”; • Apply prudent investment standard to One Investment Program providing greater

diversification; and • The ability to establish a policy that would allow elected officials to attend meetings via

telephone or video conferencing. Conflict of Interest Act

• Enable elected officials to better understand their obligations; • Replace out-dated term “pecuniary interest” and include language that speaks to “ethics

and integrity”; • Penalties should be amended to include a broader range of options; • Elected officials should have access to advice on the Conflict of Interest Act and

Municipal Code of Conduct and be able to rely on that advice; • The Provincial Integrity Commissioner could act as a default investigator for those

municipalities that do not appoint their own; and • Codes of conduct should focus on an elected official’s behaviour, not personal financial

interests. MFOA SUBMISSION Municipal Act The MFOA has also prepared a submission for Municipal Affairs and Housing that focuses solely on the Municipal Act, 2001 and, particularly, finance-related issues. The following recommendations have been made:

• Amend the Municipal Act, 2001, to include a broad power to impose taxes beyond the property tax as is found in section 267 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and a hotel/accommodation tax. The power to impose non-traditional taxes must also include any ancillary enforcement powers as well as powers to impose fines and penalties in cases of non-compliance.

Page 2

• That the current “Heads and Beds” rate of $75 be phased-in to $140 beginning in 2016 and reset every 5 years with each review of the Municipal Act, reflecting inflation in the Ontario consumer price index.

• The Province should issue regulations under subsection 40(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 to permit municipalities to adopt road pricing mechanisms (tolls).

• The Province should issue regulations to permit the sale of debt as provided in section 305.

• That subsection 110(1) be amended to allow a municipality to enter into agreements for the provision of municipal capital facilities by any person, including another municipality.

• That O. Reg. 599/06 (Municipal Services Corporations) be reviewed. • That O. Reg. 438/97 be amended as set out in the CHUMS/LAS submission to the Debt

and Investment Committee (included in attachment) and that the regulation be amended to provide the One Investment Program with prudent investor status. It is also recommended that the regulation be amended to permit municipalities to hold US dollar denominated securities.

• That O. Reg 438/97 be amended to provide the authority to: o unwind commodity hedges; o extend the settlement period of bond forward agreements to 365 days; and o collapse or sell bond forward agreements.

Within the submission by the MFOA there is a significant section related to revenue diversification and the evaluation of alternative taxes for municipalities. One of the tax tools that is utilized in other parts of the world is tax-sharing arrangements with upper levels of governments, specifically related to income tax, excise tax (e.g. fuel) or sales tax. The MFOA has not recommended any tax-sharing arrangements in its submission as this type of revenue source does not promote municipal self-sustainability, as the upper levels of government would control the tax rates. The MFOA also acknowledges that the broader tax powers included in the City of Toronto Act, 2006 will likely only have a significant impact on larger urban centres where there is more growth. Given this information and the fact that District of Muskoka is a rural municipality, staff is recommending that the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to include additional tax-sharing arrangements. With these types of taxes, the tax revenue grows with the economy and there is the potential that administrative costs may be lower if municipalities can utilize existing taxation systems. However, there is the potential for competition with the federal and provincial governments and other municipalities (should they not adopt similar tax policies). FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no financial considerations at this time. COMMUNICATIONS Upon Muskoka District Council’s approval of the recommendation contained within this report, a copy of the resolution will be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to complement and inform its review of the Municipal Act, 2001 and Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the current review of the Municipal Act, 2001 and Conflict of Interest Act supports the following Goal (in part) as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

Page 3

9. Actively advocate for Muskoka with senior levels of government for programs and policies that will assist Muskoka to reach these goals.

Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Original signed by Julie Stevens Debbie Crowder Michael Duben Commissioner of Finance District Clerk Chief Administrative Officer and Corporate Services

Page 4

AMO Submission to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Housing

concerning the 2015 Municipal Act

Five-Year Review and Conflict of

Interest Review

SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

AMO Submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing concerning the 2015

Municipal Act Five-Year Review and Conflict of Interest Review

1 The Board has had several discussions about the Ministry’s Municipal Legislation Review and makes

this initial submission which addresses both the Municipal Act and the Conflict of Interest Act.

We recognize that the Ministry is likely to receive input from others outside municipal government

in response to the review of the authorities, accountability and transparency elements. We’d be

pleased to provide practical, operational commentary to the Ministry on the input of others. At the

end of the day, the ability to implement policy is just as important as any policy change itself. New

policy needs the lens of operational considerations so that consequences are understood and can

be avoided at best or mitigated.

A. Municipal Act Review

Background: The current framework of the Municipal Act sets out the broad powers of municipal government,

spheres of jurisdiction as well as natural person powers, all of which are the outcomes of previous

major change to the Act.

These were changes that municipal governments had championed for years. A more modern Act

was introduced, ending a legislative framework that for far too long told municipal governments

how to do their business in very specified detail, treating all municipal governments in the same

manner.

AMO, along with various staff associations1 worked together and in the fall of 2004 established nine

key principles to direct the Province in the review of the Municipal Act, 2001 and any future

legislation affecting municipalities in Ontario. Those principles are:

Principles for a Mature Provincial-Municipal Relationship:

1. Municipalities are responsible and accountable governments.

2. New legislation shall enhance existing municipal powers.

3. The Province shall stop micromanaging municipal governments.

4. Where there is a compelling provincial interest the Province shall, when regulating

municipal government, define at the outset that interest.

5. Provincial legislation shall be drafted with the expectation of responsible municipal

government behaviour and not as a remedial tool.

6. Accountability means mutual respect between municipal government, the Province

and other public agencies.

1Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO), the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association (MFOA), the Ontario Municipal Administrators’ Association (OMAA), the Municipal Law Departments Association of Ontario (MLDAO) and the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA),



2

7. Resources for municipal governments shall be sustainable and commensurate with

the level of responsibility.

8. The Municipal Act shall include principles that will protect the Municipal Act and

municipal powers from provincial legislation.

9. The Province shall commit to increasing the understanding and awareness of

municipal government within all ministries.

The review commenced in 2005 by then Premier, Hon. Dalton McGuinty was done with special

attention to ensuring the province was not micro-managing municipalities. On more than one

occasion, the Premier said that he was not elected to run municipal government but rather that is

what municipal elections served. There was mutual agreement that providing a municipal

governing framework that permitted local solutions within the context of local circumstances would

be better than a top down, provincially prescribed rules based, one-size fits all approach, which was

the historical approach of the Act.

The nine (9) principles above guided that work and AMO made significant recommendations to the

government during the pre-consultation phase and in its submission to the Standing Committee on

General Government. Many of those recommendations found their way into the 2006 legislation

(Bill 130, Municipal Statute Law Act) which took effect January 1, 2007. It required a municipal

council and administration to be less reliant as a ‘ward’ of the province and to use its ‘own legs’ –

determining the policy and procedures that made sense within the community and to change them

when needed.

With the changes to the Act in 2006, the province moved a good distance to end its

micromanagement approach and AMO saw it “as yet another milestone in the advancement of a

more collaborative and respectful relationship.” Greater local authority and greater choice meant

better local responsibility. It certainly helped reduce the number of Bills including private member

Bills being introduced in the House to deal with a local matter as one example of the benefit of the

new framework.

Today:

AMO’s principles used 10 years ago still hold true for this five-year review and the Board has re-

confirmed them.

Basically, the Municipal Act’s framework is working well and there is no major overhaul needed, but

rather some clarity and some additional authority.



3 In addition to this submission, we will be looking at some technical amendments being developed

by several staff associations, in particular the Municipal Finance Officers Association’s review of the

financial areas of the Act and we will provide further comment.

In considering the above, AMO’s recommendations in this initial submission on the Municipal Act

are:

1. As a measure to help diversify the municipal revenue base, incorporate into the Act the

taxing authority that resides in the City of Toronto Act. In making this recommendation,

AMO wishes to make it clear that this additional permissive taxing authority may be helpful

to several municipal governments but it will not bring fiscal sustainability across Ontario,

even to those that might use some of that authority. We have witnessed the campaigns of

special interest groups, e.g., real estate industry against the use of the land transfer tax,

which is the vulnerability of such authority. _____________________________________________________________________________________

City of Toronto Act

267. (1) The City may, by by-law, impose a tax in the City if the tax is a direct tax, if the by-law satisfies the criteria described in subsection (3) and if such other conditions as may be prescribed are also satisfied. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 267 (1).

Exclusions, types of tax

(2) The City is not authorized to impose any of the following taxes:

1. A tax imposed on a person in respect of the person’s income, revenue, profits, receipts or other similar amounts.

2. A tax imposed on a person in respect of the person’s paid up capital, reserves, earned surplus, capital surplus or any other surplus, indebtedness or in respect of similar amounts.

3. A tax imposed on a person in respect of machinery and equipment used in research and development or used in manufacturing and processing and in respect of any assets used to enhance productivity, including computer hardware and software.

4. A tax imposed on a person in respect of remuneration for services, including non-monetary remuneration, that is paid or payable by the person or that is conferred or to be conferred by the person.

5. A sales tax imposed on a person in respect of the acquisition or purchase of any tangible personal property, any service or any intangible property, other than a tax imposed on the person,

i. for the purchase of admission to a place of amusement as defined in the Retail Sales Tax Act,

ii. for the purchase of liquor as defined in section 1 of the Liquor Licence Act for use or consumption,

iii. for the production by the person of beer or wine, as defined in section 1 of the Liquor Licence Act, at a brew on premise facility, as defined in section 1 of that Act, for use or consumption, or

iv. for the purchase of tobacco as defined in section 1 of the Tobacco Tax Act for use or consumption.

6. A tax imposed on a person in respect of lodging in or the use of the rooms or other facilities of a hotel, motel, hostel, apartment house, lodging house, boarding house, club or other similar type of accommodation, including a tax in respect of services provided by the owner of the accommodation that are related to the lodging or that are related to the use of the rooms or other facilities, but not a tax described in subparagraphs 5 i to iv.

7. A tax imposed on a person in respect of the acquisition of any gas or liquid that may be used for the purpose of generating power by means of internal combustion and in respect of any special product or any substance that may be added to the gas or liquid.

8. A tax imposed on a person in respect of the person’s consumption or use of energy, including electricity.

9. A tax on a person’s wealth, including an inheritance tax and a tax in respect of,

http://www.ontario.ca/fr/lois/loi/06c11#s267s1

http://www.ontario.ca/fr/lois/loi/06c11#s267s2



4 i. the total value of assets or the total value of two or more classes of assets owned by the person, or

ii. any monetary assets or financial instruments owned by the person.

10. A poll tax imposed on an individual by reason only of his or her presence or residence in the City or in part of it.

11. A tax on the generation, exploitation, extraction, harvesting, processing, renewal or transportation of natural resources.

12. A tax on the supply of natural gas or artificial gas.

13. A tax on the use of a highway (as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act) by a person in respect of equipment placed under, on or over the highway for the purpose of supplying a service to the public. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 267 (2).

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Across Ontario, there is a significant infrastructure gap in municipal core infrastructure (over

$60 billion). In addition, there is other capital and operating demands such as the housing

stock transferred to municipal governments in the late 1990s, which is not captured in this

gap figure, nor are the recreation, park and cultural facilities that contribute to quality of life

and vibrancy of community.

The municipal fiscal challenges cannot be met with the nine cents of every household tax

dollar that municipal governments in Ontario receive. It can only be tackled in a substantive

manner with a more predictable and secure approach. AMO is currently working on a

project “What’s Next Ontario?” to develop in concert with its membership a framework for

municipal fiscal sustainability and will share with the province the outcomes of this work as it

develops. In the meantime, as noted, some municipal governments may be in a position to

utilize Toronto’s additional special tax tools authority.

2. The Municipal Act must contain a better definition of a “meeting”. The need for this has

become readily apparent as a result of closed meeting investigations conducted under

Section 239. The current regime did not anticipate that closed meeting investigators would

hold different approaches as to what constitutes a meeting for the purposes of the Act. The

broad definition used by the Ontario Ombudsman means that any gathering of members of

council or a committee would constitute a meeting. For example, a delegation of council

members to meet with a Minister could be captured by the Ombudsman’s definition. This is

confusing to not only councils but the people who advise them about the rules for open

meetings as well as the public.

As we did with Bill 8, we recommend that the common law definition of meeting be included

in the Act to provide clarity and consistency for all participants. We have suggested that a

meeting be defined as when a quorum of elected officials gathers to deal with matters which

would ordinarily form the basis of council or a local board or committee’s business and acts

in such a way as to move them materially along the way.



5

The definition of meeting should not be as broad as the Ontario Ombudsman’s. The

Ombudsman for British Columbia has brought some common sense to this by differentiating

between a meeting and a gathering as follows:

“A gathering is less likely a meeting if: • there is no quorum of board, council or committee members present • the gathering takes place in a location not under the control of the council or board members • it is not a regularly scheduled event • it does not follow formal procedures • no voting occurs and/or • those in attendance are gathered strictly to receive information or to receive or provide training

A gathering is more likely a meeting if: • a quorum of council, board or committee members are present • it takes place at the council or board’s normal meeting place or in an area completely under the control of the council or board • it is a regularly scheduled event • formal procedures are followed • the attendees hold a vote and/or • the attendees are discussing matters that would normally form the basis of the council’s business and dealing with the matters in a way that moves them toward the possible application of the council’s authority.”



6

It is unfortunate that in Ontario we need to legislate what constitutes a meeting, but the

current conflicting approaches cannot continue and a reasonable definition, one that has

support in jurisprudence should be incorporated in the Act.

3. Apply prudent investment standard to One Investment Program, which would enable this

pooled investment authority to provide its participants with greater diversification. It would

provide for the management of funds based on return potential and risk rather than the

“legal list” approach of the statute. A legal list cannot keep pace with evolving investment

markets.

The One Investment Program has a solid track record, with a very active oversight Board and

accountability to its participants. It needs to move from the “legal list” to letting professional

investment managers manage portfolios according to the market. Prudent investment status

would allow the municipal governments to better utilize investments as a source of revenue.

Additional revenue would help municipal budgets and related capital financing plans.

AMO and its Local Authority Services subsidiary, and the Municipal Finance Officers

Association of Ontario have managed this pooled investment plan with solid rates of return

for 15 years. We have provided vast amounts of documented evidence over the years as we

have pursued this change. Our current understanding is that the Ministry is contemplating

giving the City of Toronto prudent investment status. There is no barrier to the City

participating in the One Investment Program. If other large municipalities are designated as

such and the One Investment Program does not receive the status, we will not be able to

compete and the pooled program will erode, resulting in higher fees with fewer investment

options. AMO choses to believe that the province would not take any action that would

undermine the investment program and three important municipal organizations.

4. There are also several changes that would lend clarity and further modernize the Act.

Develop a provision to clearly provide parental leave for Mayors and Councillors by cross-

referencing the parental leave legislation. This should be done in such a manner that

parental leave does not require authorization from Council under the Municipal Act, and

that it does not constitute an absence from meetings of Section 259 (1).

Permit a council to establish a policy, if it chooses, on when participation at its meetings,

committee and local board meetings, including accessibility advisory committee meetings

might be conducted by using telephone or video conferencing. Section 40(7) of the

Northern Services Board Act permits meetings by tele-conference, video-conference or

other means of distance communication.



7

Council could include in its policy provisions related to the frequency and method of

conferencing, other limitations and when council’s policy should be reviewed. Where a

council prepares such a policy, it would form part of the municipal government’s

procedures. There can be situations where remote participation supports the

representative role of councillors. It is our view that individual members of council would

use this authority judiciously. We recognize that this recommendation would not be

enabled in parts of Ontario because of technology limitations, but it does reflect the

principles articulated above.

Summary:

By and large, the Municipal Act is working well and our review did not reveal any major failings. It

provides municipal governments with broad authority so that councils’ policy decisions can reflect

local circumstances and local needs as they evolve over time. These initial recommendations on

authority are made to add some clarity and modernity and as previously noted, we will be providing

further advice based on the technical recommendations of the various staff associations.

B. Transparency and Accountability

Background: Appendix A provides a summary of the existing accountability framework within the Municipal Act

and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA). The latter Act has not had any major review over

the years.

Municipal ethics is concerned with ensuring that the standards of behaviour of municipal officials

adhere to the core values of the municipality. The public consistently rates municipalities as the

most trusted order of government in Canada. If a municipal government does not have the public’s

trust, it then holds every reason to earn it. Simply put, good government is best served when

municipal governments and their designated bodies meet that goal independently rather than

through provincial micromanagement and specific oversight.

The government’s focus on accountability and transparency in this Review is related to integrity

situations that have occurred during the last few years that have received a great deal of public

attention. The recommendations that follow have benefited from the insight and advice from

municipal associations, senior municipal staff and experts on municipal governance and

accountability, including lawyers and integrity commissioners.



8 The AMO Board believes that the following should form the desired outcomes of this review:

Any municipal accountability framework shall recognize that municipal governments are

mature, responsible and accountable levels of government. The provincial government has

recognized municipalities both generally and specifically as responsible governments and, as

such, any changes should not undermine this position.

Any municipal accountability framework should be straightforward and it should be easily

understood by elected officials and the public. In other words, it should not be complex or

legalistic. Additionally, any changes to the framework must not expose staff and municipal

governments to increased liability.

Elected officials should have access to a person who is able to provide them with advice on

potential conflicts of interest and they should be able to rely on that advice. Certainty and

affordability are key values in any process, including conflicts of interest.

An accountability framework should have safeguards to prevent and to address frivolous and

vexatious complaints. Without these safeguards, it could be misused for political and other

ends.

Specific Recommendations:

In addition to the above desired outcomes, the following recommendations are being made to the

Ministry:

1. The existing municipal accountability framework is confusing and needs to be structured in a

way that allows elected officials to understand their obligations and to conduct themselves in

a way that complies with those obligations. The MCIA is overly legalistic and it is difficult to

understand, particularly by elected officials who bear personal responsibility for complying

with the Act.

2. The term “pecuniary interest” is an outdated term. The MCIA should be updated to

incorporate modern language and overarching principles of ethics and integrity.

3. The MCIA is rather draconian and the penalties are too severe. It should be amended to

provide for a broader range of penalties. Removal from office should be reserved for the

most egregious conduct.

4. Elected officials should be able to seek advice from a municipal integrity commissioner for

MCIA as well as municipal code of conduct advice and they should be able to rely on the

advice received. As with the closed meeting investigation and ombudsman framework, the

provincial integrity commissioner could be the default advisor for municipal governments.



9

5. An appointed municipal integrity commissioner should be able to investigate complaints

related to conflict of interest matters under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, with the

authority to impose penalties. A municipal integrity commissioner can be appointed under

the Municipal Act to deal with codes of conduct complaints. The provincial integrity

commissioner could act as a default investigator for those municipalities that do not appoint

their own.

6. Where an integrity commissioner has the ability to remove someone from office for an

offence under the MCIA, there should be a process for judicial review.

7. An accountability framework should give clear authority and set out safeguards to prevent

and to address frivolous and vexatious complaints.

8. Some codes of conduct are drafted to include conflicts of interest arising from a member’s

financial interest, raising the possibility that a single action could breach both the MCIA and a

council’s code of conduct. Personal financial interests should be separate from code of

conduct matters. Codes of conduct should focus on councils’ behaviour; e.g. use of

workplace assets, ‘gifts’, staff/council member interaction, etc. Combining all potential ethical

matters in a code of conduct can create confusion.

9. Require that accountability and transparency training is completed within 90 days of taking

office. Council members are already required to do mandatory training on their personal

liabilities with respect to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Human behaviour cannot be legislated,

however solid upfront knowledge, the clarity of law, and reliable advice are important inputs

to judgement and action for both elected officials and others.

10. One of the outcomes of Bill 8’s amendment process is to exempt the City of Toronto from the

‘final oversight’ of the Ontario Ombudsman. In the Committee’s review process, it did not

exempt other municipal governments who appoint their own municipal ombudsman. There

is no reasonable rationale for such a dual standard and this should be rectified.



10 Summary:

The already extensive and complex municipal accountability framework should not be made even

more complex and legalistic. There will no doubt be differing perspectives on how to ‘reform’ the

accountability framework, including the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. AMO remains open to

discussing with the Ministry ideas for change that may come from others.

At the end of the day, municipal governments are the most accessible and accountable order of

government. Any change to the accountability framework needs to complement this rather than

detract from it. The desired outcomes articulated above have merit and should be used in

evaluating any legislative change. In addition, there needs to be an across-the-board view in making

any changes to any part of the framework.

Conclusion:

AMO’s Board submits these comments and recommendations for consideration. As noted, there

may be some additional technical amendments from municipal staff associations. As always, AMO

is available for government to government discussions on these and any other recommendations

the Ministry receives.



11

Appendix “A”

The Existing Accountability Framework

Ontario does not have a comprehensive statute or regulation that addresses municipal accountability and transparency. Codes of conduct and integrity commissioners are addressed in Part V.1: Accountability and Transparency of the Municipal Act, while open meetings are addressed in Part VI: Practices and Procedures of the Municipal Act. Financial conflicts of interest are dealt with in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Additional sources of municipal accountability and transparency rules include the Criminal Code, judicial inquiries/common law and, as of January 2016, the Ombudsman Act.

The Municipal Act

CODES OF CONDUCT The Municipal Act permits municipalities to establish local codes of conduct for members of council and local boards. Codes of conduct are bylaws that establish standards for ethical behaviour when members are acting in their official capacity and for compliance with the municipality’s rules, policies and procedures. Common issues addressed in codes of conduct include relations with other members of council, staff and the public, gifts and benefits, confidentiality, use of property and discrimination/harassment. Some codes have gone beyond these areas and touch upon financial interest, which can be confusing. It is up to a municipality to determine the content of its code of conduct, the complaints process and many of the rules around its enforcement. However, a municipality cannot make it an offence to breach the code of conduct. The only two penalties available for breaching the code of conduct are a reprimand or a suspension of pay for up to 90 days. Responsibility for overseeing the code of conduct is normally assigned to a municipal integrity commissioner appointed by the municipality.

INTEGRITY OFFICERS The Municipal Act permits municipalities to appoint the following integrity officers to help increase accountability and transparency at the local level:

Integrity Commissioner

Municipal Ombudsman

Auditor General

Lobbyist Registry

Integrity Commissioner: A municipality may appoint an integrity commissioner who is independent of council to interpret its code of conduct, to provide confidential advice to members on their obligations under the code and other rules, procedures and policies. In carrying out his or her responsibilities, the integrity commissioner may exercise such powers and perform such duties as are lawfully assigned by the municipality. Generally, a municipal integrity commissioner may investigate an alleged code violation and make recommendations to council about penalties. Other processes are in place to do this. If council accepts the integrity commissioner’s recommendation, it may either reprimand the member or suspend the member’s pay for up to 90 days. Councils do



12 not have the ability to impose other types of penalties or to make a breach of the code of conduct an offence punishable by law. The Integrity Commissioner has no authority for assigning penalties; this is a matter for Council as a body in the public domain. Municipal Ombudsman: A municipality may appoint a municipal ombudsman to investigate complaints or self-identified investigations (i.e. system reviews) of matters that deal with the administration of the municipality and its agencies, boards and commissions. A municipal ombudsman shall conduct all investigations in private and maintain confidentiality. The municipal ombudsman’s power is limited to reporting and making recommendations to council. Aside from Toronto, which is required to appoint a municipal ombudsman, no Ontario municipalities have availed themselves of this authority. Auditor General: A municipality may appoint an Auditor General who reports to council and is responsible for assisting the council in holding itself and its administrators accountable for the quality of stewardship over public funds and for achievement of value for money in municipal operations. Most municipalities rely on their internal or external auditor to determine the municipal government’s financial picture and financial statements. Aside from Toronto, which is required to have an Auditor General, Ottawa appears to be the only municipality that currently has an Auditor General. The Provincial Auditor General already holds the ability to investigate use of provincial grant funds for a specific purpose or as a systemic review/value for money of a funding program. Lobbyist Registry: A municipality may establish a public registry for lobbyists, establish a code of conduct for lobbyists and prohibit former public office holders from lobbying for a designated period of time. Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton currently have lobbyist registries.

OPEN MEETINGS Meetings of councils and local boards must be held in public, unless they fall into one of the limited closed meeting exemptions in Section 239 of the Municipal Act. For example, meetings may be closed for discussion of matters that are before the courts, a pending purchase or sale of land, or personal matters about an identifiable individual. Municipalities may appoint an independent open meeting investigator to investigate whether a meeting was properly closed to the public. Municipalities have appointed individuals or investigative services or have defaulted to the Ontario Ombudsman as the closed meeting investigator. Open meeting investigations often hinge on determining whether a meeting has in fact occurred.

JUDICIAL INQUIRIES The Municipal Act authorizes a municipality to pass a resolution requesting that a judge conduct an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, to investigate any supposed breach of trust or other misconduct, to inquire into any matter connected with the good government of the municipality or to inquire into the conduct of any part of the public business of the municipality. In conducting an inquiry, a judge has the extensive investigatory powers. However, a judge does not have any enforcement powers; he or she can only make recommendations to the municipal council.



13 There have been two high profile municipal inquiries in Ontario in recent years. In 2005, Justice Denise Bellamy delivered her report of the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry/Toronto External Contracts Inquiry. The inquiry resulted from allegations of conflict of interest, bribery and corruption in the newly amalgamated City of Toronto’s procurement practices. Justice Bellamy found that there were a number of improprieties in the City’s dealings with its external contractors and she made 241 recommendations to Council. With respect to ethics, Justice Bellamy recommended that council appoint an integrity commissioner to provide advice to councillors and staff, investigate complaints and recommend an appropriate range of sanctions for misconduct. She also recommended an expansion of the existing code of conduct to include broader principles and conflicts of interest and more stringent rules around lobbying, including the creation of a lobbyist registry. Some of Justice Bellamy’s recommendations were adopted in new accountability and transparency sections of the City of Toronto Act and the Municipal Act during the 2006 legislation review. In 2011, Justice Douglas Cunningham released his final report of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, titled “Updating the Ethical Infrastructure”. The second part of the inquiry stemmed from allegations that Mayor Hazel McCallion improperly inserted herself into a land development deal between the City of Mississauga and a private company in which her adult son had a financial interest. Justice Cunningham found that Mayor McCallion had a “real and apparent conflict of interest”, but she did not breach the narrow rules laid out in the MCIA. Justice Cunningham made 27 recommendations pertaining to municipal accountability. Similar to Justice Bellamy, he recommended expanding the code of conduct and definition of a conflict of interest and appointing an integrity commissioner to provide advice, investigate complaints and make recommendations to Council. He also recommended providing safeguards to preserve the independence of the integrity commissioner such as security of tenure and indemnification. Justice Cunningham spent a substantial amount of time discussing the MCIA and the need to clarify and coordinate the respective roles of integrity commissioners and judges in regulating conflict of interest. Some of Justice Cunningham’s recommendations would require municipalities and staff to take on some responsibility for conflict of interest compliance such as publishing a list of conflicts and providing comfort letters to parties doing business with a municipality.



14

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) regulates how elected officials are to conduct themselves when they have a ‘pecuniary’ or financial interest in a matter that is being considered by council or a committee. Conflicts of interest arise where there is a clash between a member’s private financial interest and their public duty. When present at a meeting in which a matter is to be considered, a member who has a direct or indirect financial interest in the matter must declare a conflict of interest, describe the nature of the conflict and recuse himself or herself from voting on the matter. The member is also prohibited from influencing or attempting to influence the vote on a matter in which they have a financial interest. The financial interests of a member’s parent, spouse or child that are known to the member are deemed to be the financial interests of the member for the purposes of the Act. The Act provides some exceptions to the general rule on conflict of interest, including where the member has a financial interest in common with electors generally or where the interest of the member is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member. Within six weeks of becoming aware of the conflict, an “elector” who believes that a member has contravened the MCIA may apply to a court to determine the question. A judge is required to declare the seat of a member vacant where a conflict of interest exists, unless the judge finds that the member contravened the MCIA through inadvertence or an error in judgment. While the MCIA provides for some additional discretionary penalties, the consequences for breaching the Act are severe. Individual members bear personal responsibility for complying with the MCIA and must seek their own independent legal advice about potential conflicts of interest. As the MCIA is interpreted and enforced by the courts, much of the law on conflict of interest is found in court decisions. Additionally, confusion arises when there is an overlap between codes of conduct and the MCIA. Some codes of conduct address conflicts of interest arising from a member’s financial interest, raising the possibility that a single action could breach both the MCIA and a council’s code of conduct. It is not often clear whether a municipal integrity commissioner may continue to investigate in these circumstances and how a court proceeding will affect a municipal integrity commissioner’s investigation.

The Criminal Code

It is a criminal offence for a municipal official to commit fraud or a breach of trust in connection with their duties of office. It is also a criminal offence to corrupt a municipal official or to use threats, deceit or other unlawful means to influence a municipal official. The maximum penalty for breaching the municipal provisions in the Criminal Code is five years imprisonment.



15

The Ontario Ombudsman Act

As of January 1, 2016, the Ontario Ombudsman will have expanded oversight of municipal governments. The following changes will be made to the municipal accountability framework:

The Ontario Ombudsman will become the default ombudsman for municipal governments

that do not appoint a municipal ombudsman, except in the City of Toronto.

The Ontario Ombudsman will have ‘final oversight’ of individual complaints where a

municipal ombudsman has been appointed, except in the City of Toronto.

The Ontario Ombudsman will have oversight of municipal auditors general and integrity

commissioners. The government has not provided clarification on the scope of the Ontario

Ombudsman’s powers in these areas.

The Ontario Ombudsman will be able to conduct ‘systemic’ investigations of all municipal

governments, including the City of Toronto.

The existing closed meeting investigation regime will be maintained and there will be no

ability to refer a matter for ‘final oversight’ to the provincial Ombudsman. The Ontario

Ombudsman will continue to be the default closed meeting investigator where a municipality

has not appointed a closed meeting investigator.

By regulation, boards of health, library boards, long-term care homes and police services

boards are to be excluded from an Ombudsman’s oversight. It is not clear what, if any, role

the Ontario Ombudsman will play in enforcing codes of conduct and whether the Ontario

Ombudsman’s role will be limited to maladministration. There is also concern that municipal

integrity officers will be required to breach their confidentiality requirements under the

Municipal Act by turning over confidential documents and information to the Ontario

Ombudsman.

It is not clear what, if any, role the Ontario Ombudsman will play in enforcing codes of conduct and whether the Ontario Ombudsman’s role will be limited to maladministration. There is also concern that municipal integrity officers will be required to breach their confidentiality requirements under the Municipal Act by turning over confidential documents and information to the Ontario Ombudsman.

MUNICIPAL

LEGISLATION

REVIEW

SUBMISSION October 2015

Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario

1

Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario (MFOA) October 2015

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................2

WHO WE ARE .....................................................................................................................................3

BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................3

PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................................3

DISCUSSION GUIDE QUESTIONS..........................................................................................................4

CURRENT TOOLS AND FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY..............................................................................4 PROVINCIAL PROGRAMS ON THE PROPERTY TAX BASE ......................................................................................... 5 REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION ............................................................................................................................. 6

How Diversified are Ontario Municipal Revenue Sources? ................................................................... 8 Evaluating Alternative Taxes................................................................................................................. 9

CHANGES TO EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO ENHANCE REVENUES ............................................................. 12

REGIONAL VARIATION...................................................................................................................... 18

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ 21 APPENDIX A: MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION REVIEW PUBLIC CONSULTATION DISCUSSION GUIDE QUESTIONS ................... 21 APPENDIX B: DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAX REVENUES, SELECTED OECD COUNTRIES, 2007 (%) ......... 23 APPENDIX C: TAX TOOLS AND REVENUE SOURCES AVAILABLE, EMPLOYED, OR THAT BENEFIT THE CITIES ................... 24 APPENDIX D: SECTION 418 INVESTMENTS ....................................................................................................... 25

2


Municipal Legislation Review Submission Executive Summary The Municipal Finance Officers’ Association (MFOA)’s review of the Municipal Act, 2001 (“the Act”), makes numerous recommendations to improve the Act in support of municipal financial sustainability and responsive and flexible municipal government, as well as other principles outlined in the report. This submission contains recommendations on revenue tool expansion, financial administration, and building capacity to manage municipal fiscal challenges. The specific recommendations are summarized below. Recommendations:

• Amend the Municipal Act, 2001, to include a broad power to impose taxes beyond the property tax as is found in section 267 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and a hotel/accommodation tax. The power to impose non-traditional taxes must also include any ancillary enforcement powers as well as powers to impose fines and penalties in cases of non-compliance.

• That the current “Heads and Beds” rate of $75 be phased-in to $140 beginning in 2016 and reset every 5 years with each review of the Municipal Act, reflecting inflation in the Ontario consumer price index.

• The Province should issue regulations under subsection 40(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 to permit municipalities to adopt road pricing mechanisms.

• The Province should issue regulations to permit the sale of debt as provided in section 305.

• That subsection 110(1) be amended to allow a municipality to enter into agreements for the provision of municipal capital facilities by any person, including another municipality.

• That O. Reg. 599/06 (Municipal Services Corporations) be reviewed.

• That O. Reg. 438/97 be amended as set out in the CHUMS/LAS submission to the Debt and Investment Committee (attached) and that the regulation be amended to provide the One Investment Program with prudent investor status. It is also recommended that the regulation be amended to permit municipalities to hold US dollar denominated securities.

• That O. Reg 438/97 be amended to provide the authority to: o unwind commodity hedges; o extend the settlement period of bond forward agreements to 365 days; and o collapse or sell bond forward agreements.

3


Who We Are This review of the Act has been prepared by the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario (MFOA). The MFOA was established in 1989 and represents the interests of Municipal Finance Officers across Ontario and Atlantic Canada. MFOA promotes the interests of its members in carrying out their statutory and other financial responsibilities by initiating studies and sponsoring seminars to review, discuss, and develop positions on important policy and financial management issues.

Background In June 2015, the Province of Ontario launched a review of the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, along with a review of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. This review process provides the Association and its members an opportunity to suggest amendments to these Acts. To facilitate the review, MMAH issued discussion documents that set out a number of questions under various topics related to the Acts under review.1 Since MFOA is a finance association, our focus is on municipal finance issues and not the full range of questions posed in the discussion document. For a list of all discussion questions posed by the province refer to Appendix A. As important as the Municipal Act is to municipalities, it does not fully set out the full provincial-municipal financial relationship. It excludes reviews of important financial tools outside of the Act (e.g. Development Charges Act) and makes no mention of the system of intergovernmental transfers that can be part of a predictable infrastructure funding strategy. The broader issue of building a long-term municipal fiscal sustainability framework is the central focus of AMO’s What’s Next Ontario, which is currently underway.2 This is a substantial research and policy development project. The material in this submission is meant to address the current Municipal Act review, which is narrower in scope, but our comments are rooted in a view of the provincial-municipal relationship more broadly conceived.

Principles MFOA believes that all good public policy should be principle based. The following are the principles that guide our specific recommendations for reform:

1. Municipalities are responsible and accountable governments. 2. New legislation shall enhance existing municipal powers. 3. The province shall stop micro-managing municipal governments. 4. Where there is a compelling provincial interest the province shall when regulating

municipal government define at the outset that interest. 5. Provincial legislation shall be drafted with the expectation of responsible municipal

government behaviour and not as a remedial tool. 6. Accountability means mutual respect between municipal government, the province

and other public agencies. 7. Resources for municipal governments shall be sustainable and commensurate with

the level of responsibility.

1 Municipal Legislation Review: Public Consultation Discussion Guide, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, June 2015 2 For further information see the What’s Next Ontario website

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10979

http://whatsnextontario.amo.on.ca/

4


8. The Municipal Act shall include principles that will protect the Municipal Act and municipal powers from all provincial legislation.

9. The province shall commit to increasing the understanding and awareness of municipal government within all ministries.

Discussion Guide Questions In total the Guide asks 27 questions under the following chapter headings:3

• Accountability and Transparency • Municipal Financial Sustainability, and • Responsive and Flexible Municipal Government

As a finance organization, our interest rests with the 4 questions related to financial sustainability:

1. Do you feel your municipality is able to effectively plan for and prioritize its investments in infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, water systems, public transit) and its spending on services (e.g. fire, police, water, garbage, public health, recreation programs)?

2. Municipalities have a number of options when deciding how to pay for services and projects (e.g. property tax, user fees). Do you feel your municipality is using the right mix of revenue sources to pay for local services and invest in infrastructure?

3. Are there changes to current tools that could contribute to municipal financial sustainability (i.e. ability to meet current and future financial needs)?

4. Do regional variations (e.g. economy, geography, demographics) present barriers to municipalities achieving long-term financial sustainability? If so, how can these challenges be addressed in the Municipal Act?

Questions 1 and 2 are directed at municipalities for comment. This submission is a response to questions 3 and 4.

Current Tools and Financial Sustainability Question 3: Are there changes to current tools that could contribute to municipal financial sustainability (i.e. ability to meet current and future financial needs)? MFOA has long been an advocate for the promotion of municipal financial sustainability. It is at the heart of all of our policy work and training. The Association appreciates the focus on financial sustainability in the legislation review discussion guide. The discussion guide defines financial sustainability as “the ability to match expenditures well with revenues – on both an operating and capital cost basis.” AMO’s What’s Next initiative, which is also about financial sustainability, offers a similar but broader definition:

3 See Appendix A for the full list of discussion questions

5


A financial system that can adequately cover operating costs, maintain in good repair existing assets, replace assets where appropriate, fund future growth and service improvements, anticipate inflation and changes in standards and technology, all financed over an appropriate period of time.4

As the definitions above suggest, a number of factors affect the financial sustainability of municipalities. In general, there is a revenue dimension and an expenditure dimension to sustainability. Current pressures in our sector affecting sustainability include, but are not limited to:

• Municipalities having responsibility for redistributive social programs that are provincial responsibilities in other provinces,

• Having responsibility for programs with limited ability to control costs such as policing, • Having infrastructure burdens that are beyond a municipality’s ability to finance, • Reliance on a dominate single revenue source (property tax) • Reporting requirements that are onerous • Unfunded mandates whereby services and standards are mandated, but inadequate

funding is provided to fulfill the requirements Some of the factors that affect sustainability, such as a broader range of revenue tools, are issues that can be addressed through the Municipal Act. Others, such as the burden of social service programs and interest arbitration are beyond the scope of the current Municipal Act review. Nevertheless, all of these challenges need to be identified if the real barriers to financial sustainability are to be addressed.

Provincial Programs on the Property Tax Base Ontario municipalities face pressures for local services that are provincial services in other provinces. While the Province did upload some social services costs from municipalities through the Provincial Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review (PMFSDR) initiative, the municipal subsidy to provincial health and social services programs was still roughly $3.2 billion in 2013 (see table below). Table 1: Updated fiscal gap analysis (2013)

Provincial program Cost ($M) Revenue ($M) Net* ($M) Public health 808 570 238 Hospitals 29 0 29 Ambulance 1,041 552 489 Social Assistance 3,811 2,667 1,144 Senior services 1,468 1,121 348 Child care 1,205 984 221 Social housing 1,699 930 770 Total 10,062 6,823 3,238

* Figures net of provincial and federal contributions, user fees and service charges

Information based on the provincial summaries of the Financial Information Return (FIR)5

4 AMO What’s Next Ontario 5 Association of Municipalities of Ontario. (n.d.) Ontario’s $3 Billion provincial-municipal fiscal gap is growing. Retrieved from: http://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-PDFs/Finance/3_Bil_Gap/$3-Billion-Gap-Fact-Sheet.aspx

6


Ontario also remains the only province that transferred social housing to its municipal governments. Municipalities have been responsible for the provincial cost of social housing since 1998. In 2013, social housing represented $7.5 billion in capital costs; 40% of social housing stock had been fully amortized, and social housing suffered from significant maintenance backlogs. We recognize that additional social service uploads are not envisioned as part of the Municipal Act review, but they are critical to a discussion of municipal financial sustainability. We are confident that this issue will emerge as a major discussion point in AMO’s What’s Next initiative. Revenue Diversification Despite being responsible for a broad range of mandated services, municipalities continue to depend on one major source of revenue: property tax. On average across all municipalities, property tax accounted for 42% of municipal revenue in 2013. However, this average masks a great deal of variation. Property tax accounted for 50% or more of all municipal revenues in approximately 46% of municipalities. The other major source of own source revenues is user fees. Fees accounted for up to 25% of revenues in almost 80% of municipalities. Together, these revenue sources accounted for over 50% of revenues in almost 90% of all municipalities. In 22.2% of municipalities, these two revenue types account for more than 75% of total revenues. This suggests that there is not very much diversification in own source revenues in the Ontario municipal sector. Questions about property tax and whether municipal governments need alternative sources of revenue have launched a multitude of papers and articles. Over twenty studies and initiatives have been undertaken in British Columbia alone since the early 1980s (Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, 2012).6 In this report, we are not seeking to answer the question of whether property tax is a ‘good tax’ and whether it is being fully used. Instead, we are exploring the arguments surrounding alternative sources of revenue.7 Table 2: Select Sources of municipal revenue (2013)

Property Tax as % of Total

Revenue

Property Tax as % of Total

Revenue

Fees as % of Total

Revenue

Fees as % of Total

Revenue

Taxes and Fees as %

of Total Revenue

Taxes and Fees as %

of Total Revenue

# % # % # % 0 - 25% 11 2.5% 345 79.1% 2 0.5%

25% - 50% 223 51.1% 89 20.4% 40 9.2% 50% - 75% 198 45.4% 2 0.5% 297 68.1% 75% - 100% 4 0.9% 0 0.0% 97 22.2%

Total 436 100.0% 436 100.0% 436 100.0% Source: 2013 FIR 6 Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. (2012). Municipal revenue sources review: Previous studies of local government revenues. 7 Refer to Slack, Enid. (2011). The property tax – in theory and in practice. Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance, No. 2(2011) and Enid Slack’s 2015 Ontario Good Roads Association conference presentation “Enough Talk: The Case for Permitting New Municipal Revenue Tools”.

7


Many studies support increasing the municipal revenue toolkit.8 For example, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA) and the Alberta Municipal Services Corporation’s (AMSC) 2014 submission to the Municipal Government Act review (p.4), the organizations stated that a lack of “authority to establish a broad range of fees and taxes” contributed to the organizations concerns regarding the sustainability of the municipal sector.9 The literature speaks to a larger mix of taxes giving municipalities more autonomy and flexibility to meet demands for services and capital infrastructure. Vander Ploeg (2008)10 argues that a mix would result in better revenue growth; better accountability; better ability to cope with demographic changes; would align better with expenditures on social services; and would be able to offset issues with property tax. A mix of taxes would also help municipalities increase their taxes in more stable and equitable ways. “To levy a given amount of revenue, relying on many sources means that the local government can set lower tax rates for any single tax” (Slack, 2014, p. 9).11 Dirie (2006) notes that in addition to having access to multiple sources of revenue, local governments need the freedom to set the level and composition of their revenues. It is this freedom that promotes the laudable goals of local autonomy and local accountability.12 In her 2015 presentation “Enough Talk: The Case for Permitting New Municipal Revenue Tools” Slack makes the case for matching revenue tools with the characteristics of municipal services. Examples of this type of pairing includes:

• User fees to pay for private services, such as water, sewer, garbage, and transit • Property and sales tax to pay for public services, such as police, fire, and local parks • Income tax to pay for redistributive services, such as social assistance and social

housing • Intergovernmental transfers to pay for spillover services, such as roads/transit and

culture Dewees (2002, p.586)13 also argues that for some services, user fees are “economically desirable, because they help to allocate resources to maximize the satisfaction that we receive from those resources. User fees can constrain demand at a time when it is very expensive to expand supply.” Municipalities should also look to revenue sources beyond taxation.

8 For a dissenting opinion see McMillan and Dahlby, 2014, p. 1 9 Alberta Urban Municipalities Association and Alberta Municipal Services Corporation. (2014). Building thriving communities: AUMA’s Submission to the MGA Review Process. 10 Vander Ploeg, Casey. (2008). Problematic property tax: Why the property tax fails to measure up and what to do about it. Canada West Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.suma.org/cmsupload/fckeditor/Research/CWF%20-%20Problematic%20Property%20Tax%20-%20November%202008.pdf 11 Slack, Enid. (2014). Why Canadian cities need more fiscal autonomy? Public Sector Digest, Q1(2014), 8-11. 12 Dirie, Ilias. (2006). Municipal finance: Innovative resourcing for municipal infrastructure and service provision. Commonwealth Local Government Forum. Retrieved from: http://www.clgf.org.uk/userfiles/1/File/Municipal_Finance_Paper.pdf 13 Dewees, Donald. (2002). Pricing municipal services: The economics of user fees. Canadian Tax Journal, 50(2), 586-599.

8


Despite the support expressed for enlarging the municipal revenue toolbox, it is important to note that one size does not fit all. Slack and Kitchen (2003)14 note that not every revenue source is appropriate for all municipalities under all circumstances. Large municipalities may benefit from additional taxing authorities, while small municipalities might not have a sufficient tax base to make the cost of levying these taxes beneficial. It is also worth noting that new revenue sources will provide marginal increases to amounts received from property taxation, but no other own source revenue will come close to matching the current $18.1 billion from the property tax. How Diversified are Ontario Municipal Revenue Sources? The range of authorized tax revenue options in Ontario does not stack up well compared with options available internationally. Municipalities in other countries collect revenue through: taxes on income, profits, and capital gains; taxes on payroll and workforce; real property taxes; other property-related taxes; taxes on goods and services; and other taxes. Slack (2010) observed in a comparison of OECD countries that local governments with significant responsibilities for redistributive services such as social protection and health were less dependent on property tax. Commonwealth countries are more likely to be more dependent on property tax, than countries outside the Commonwealth (Refer to appendix B). Canada’s dependence on property tax may be rooted in its past, rather than reflect its present. Vander Ploeg (2002)15 found that American cities had a broader suite of tax tools than their selected Canadian counterparts. American city tax tools include: property tax, general retail sales tax, other forms of sales tax, business tax, land transfer tax, other taxes, and tax sharing of income tax, among other taxes (Refer to appendix C). Differences can also be seen when comparing Ontario municipalities with municipalities across the country. Other provinces in Canada, as noted in the inter-jurisdictional scan below, provide for the use of municipal tax tools beyond those included in the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act.

14 Kitchen, Harry and Slack, Enid. (2003). Special study: New finance options for municipal governments. Canadian Tax Journal, 51(6), 2215 – 2275. 15 Vander Ploeg, Casey. (2002). Big city revenue sources: A Canada-U.S. comparison of municipal tax tools and revenue levers. Canada West Foundation. Retrieved from: http://cwf.ca/publications-1/big-city-revenue-sources-a-canada-u-s-comparison-of-municipal-tax-tools-and-revenue-levers

9


Table 3: Inter-Jurisdictional Comparison of Municipal Tax Tools across Canada16

ON

BC

AB

SK

MB

QC

NB

NS

PEI

NFLD

Property tax √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Business tax √ √ √ √ √ Area/Improvement/Service Area/Parcel √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Road pricing and taxing ∆ ∆ ∆ Equipment tax √ √ √ √ √ Fuel tax ∆ ∆ √ ∆ Hotel tax √ ∆ ∆ √ √ ∆ ∆ √ ∆ Amusement tax ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ Sin tax ∆ Advertising tax ∆ √ Income/poll tax √ Other: Utility, cable, or 9-1-1 tax √ ∆ √ ∆ Land transfer tax ∆ √ √ √ ∆ √ All municipalities ∆ Largest city (ies) in province only The inter-jurisdictional comparison also highlights the variation within the Province of Ontario. Part X of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, authorizes the City to impose direct taxes. Subsection 267(1) states that:

The City may, by by-law, impose a tax in the City if the tax is a direct tax, if the by-law satisfies the criteria described in subsection (3) and if such other conditions as may be prescribed are also satisfied. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 267 (1).

Overall, the Ontario municipal revenue toolbox appears to lag municipalities in other countries or provinces in Canada. Evaluating Alternative Taxes What works in one jurisdiction may not work in another. To evaluate what makes a good local tax in Ontario, MFOA used the criteria employed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) in the report Strong Fiscal Futures: A Blueprint for Strengthening BC Local Governments’ Finance System. The criteria are:

• Fairness: Do they reflect ability to pay; • Responsiveness: Do they grow with the local economy; • Autonomy/Accountability: Are they clearly associated with the government

imposing the charge; • Service Correlation/Jurisdictional Spillovers: Is there a reasonable match

between benefit and cost; • Economic Neutrality: Do they unduly impact economic decision making;

16 BC Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. (2012). Municipal Revenue Sources Review Inter-Jurisdictional Comparison of Revenue Tools. Retrieved from: http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/library/revenue_source_review/Interjurisdictional%20Comparison%20of%20Revenue%20Tools.pdf

10


• Adaptability: Do they work in a diverse set of circumstances; • Stability: Do they provide a stable revenue stream that works in the context of

local government no deficit rules; and, • Administrative Efficiency: Can they be effectively administered?

It is unlikely that any revenue source can adequately satisfy all these criteria. One of MFOA’s policy principles is to promote municipal self-sustainability where possible. Accordingly, this analysis of tax tools does not include tax-sharing arrangements with the provincial or federal governments. Tax sharing does not promote municipal financial autonomy since the municipality does not have control of the tax rates (Slack, 2014).17 Nevertheless, as noted above, intergovernmental transfers may be appropriate for situations where there are externalities or the local tax base is incapable of supporting required local services. Land transfer taxes

Many of our members have expressed a strong interest in alternative revenue sources. A report from Mississauga estimates that the land transfer tax alone could raise approximately $74 million annually, which would make a positive contribution to closing the City’s infrastructure gap. The incidence of the land transfer tax is slightly more positive than property tax due to less falling on renters and exemptions for first time buyers. The tax produces a relatively small efficiency impact due to the immobility of property and the effective exclusion of business property. Most transactions are straightforward, but there could be many administrative issues in particular cases. Targeted consumption taxes Internationally, targeted consumption taxes are significant sources of municipal revenue. Certain targeted consumption taxes, such as amusement and sin taxes, can be linked to municipalities on the basis that amusement and sin activities can drive municipal expenses, including costs related to protection to persons and property, social and family services, and environmental services. These taxes can also impact economic behaviour and may be consistent with health objectives by making unhealthy behaviour more expensive. The incidence of targeted consumption taxes depend on the product or service being taxed. These taxes tend not to be economically efficient as a result of the narrow base to which they are applied. They can be administered locally or provincially. Although border issues between jurisdictions and between taxable and non-taxable products will likely ensure the need for strong enforcement tools to counter built-in incentives towards tax avoidance. Billboard tax

The City of Toronto grossed over $10 million in ‘third party sign tax’ according to the City’s 2013 FIR. The City of Winnipeg, under the City of Winnipeg Charter, is also authorized to levy a business tax on advertising signs (primarily billboards). The tax is assessed based on the size of the sign and is paid for by the owner. The tax may run counter to commercial intensification efforts.

17 Slack, Enid. (2014). Why Canadian cities need more fiscal autonomy? Public Sector Digest, Q1(2014), 8-11.

11


Billboard tax has no direct impact on households and a relatively small efficiency impact due to the immobility of property. Most transactions should be straightforward, but they will require moderate effort to set up new collection structure. In Ontario, taxation of billboards has raised issues as to the appropriate methodology for assessing billboards and the very definition of what constitutes a billboard. Vehicle registration tax Despite being a stable source of revenue, vehicle registration tax shares the high visibility of property tax making it a less politically popular tax. The tax can be linked to municipalities on the basis that the sources of tax impact municipal transportation costs, including roads and winter maintenance. The tax may be consistent with municipal pro-transit and air quality objectives. The incidence is restricted to car owners with a relatively minor effect on the business community (fleets and company vehicles). There is no exportability and low administrative complexity, although administration does require provincial cooperation. Purists argue that vehicle registration tax does not take frequency of car use or time of use into consideration. Hotel tax

Many American and European cities, and some Canadian municipalities levy hotel and accommodation taxes. “Ontario is the only province that does not authorize municipalities to levy hotel taxes, but major hotels in a number of Ontario cities have voluntarily agreed to collect a three per cent destination marketing fee. The funds are earmarked for tourism marketing and development purposes, and are overseen by industry associations. Even in municipalities that have the power to charge hotel taxes, revenues often are designated for these purposes. However, municipalities still benefit. Without hotel taxes, the city’s efforts to develop and market its tourism industry would rest solely on the property tax base. ”18 Hotel tax is generally considered positive given the income distribution of hotel room consumption compared to property tax. Hotel tax tends to be paid by non-residents of a city. There is little efficiency or locational effect. Opponents argue that hotel taxes reduce tourist expenditure on other items. Administrative issues seem manageable. Issues may occur around online sales through intermediaries.

18 Canadian Union of Public Employees. (2014). Hotel and accommodation taxes. Retrieved from: http://cupe.ca/hotel-and-accommodation-taxes

12


Summary Table 4: Summary of revenue tools using the evaluative criteria

While MFOA does not endorse any specific tools, it looks forward to progress on the revenue front. Municipalities require new revenue tools to respond better to local circumstances and these tools should not be limited to the GTHA. Further, these tools should improve the resiliency of the existing local government finance system by maintaining and building on its strongest features. It is unlikely that providing the authority to raise additional taxes will solve the municipal infrastructure deficit in the Province. However, a larger municipal revenue toolbox could “reduce the pressure on the property tax base to fund services that would be more appropriately financed in other ways” (Kitchen and Slack, 2003, p. 2223). While this is true in urban Ontario, it is unlikely that these revenue sources would be adopted in many rural parts of the province and they would not have a significant revenue yield in any event. New revenue sources are generally of use to urban Ontario.

Changes to Existing Provisions of the Act to Enhance Revenues Several sections in the Act or its regulations dealing with revenue have either never had regulations to give them force, have a regulation that is out of date, or should be amended.

City of Toronto Act, 2006

Hotel tax Criteria

Land transfer

tax

Targeted consumption

taxes

Billboard tax

Vehicle registration

tax

Fairness Depends NA

Responsiveness - - X Autonomy/Accountability Service correlation/Jurisdictional Spillover X X

Economic Neutrality

Adaptability - Stability - Administrative Efficiency X

Recommendation: Amend the Municipal Act, 2001, to include a broad power to impose taxes beyond the property tax as is found in section 267 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and a hotel/accommodation tax. The power to impose non-traditional taxes must also include any ancillary enforcement powers as well as powers to impose fines and penalties in cases of non-compliance.

13


Section 323: Heads and Beds A number of properties in Ontario are subject to taxation, but not based on current value assessment. These properties, which are identified in section 323 of the Act, include:

• Colleges and universities • Public hospitals or provincial mental health facilities • Correctional institutions, and • Residences for the developmentally disabled

For these types of properties the tax is determined by applying a regulated rate against the number of students (universities, colleges) or beds (correctional facilities, residences for the developmentally disabled). Subsection 323(10) gives the Minister of Finance the authority to establish the applicable rate by regulation. Currently the rate is set at $75. This rate was established in 1987 and has not been adjusted in the subsequent 25 year period. MFOA has previously recommended that this rate be adjusted to reflect inflation over the period. Others have also recommended such changes. Based on the Ontario consumer price index, the rate should be approximately $140 when adjusted for the index’s inflation.

Chart I: Heads and Beds Rate Adjusted for Inflation

Since the rate remained constant,

• In 2013, municipalities lost $48M in potential revenue • Between 1987 and 2014, the cumulative municipal loss was approximately $695M

Had the rate been adjusted every 5 years between 1987 and 2014, the cumulative municipal loss would drop to approximately $102M.

$60$70$80$90

$100$110$120$130$140$150

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Adjusting "Heads and Beds" by CPI

Actual Rate Adjusted Rate

14


Road pricing This subsection reviews two methods of road pricing: toll highways and congestion charges. Section 40: Toll Highways Subsection 40(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, states that:

40. (1) A municipality may, (a) designate a highway as a toll highway; and (b) operate and maintain the designated highway as a toll highway.

Notwithstanding this grant of power, Subsection 40(2) states that “a municipality does not have the power to designate, operate and maintain a highway as a toll highway until a regulation is made under this section.” Subsection 40(3) provides for broad regulation authority for the Lieutenant Governor in Council. This provision has been in the Act for over 10 years. It is time that regulations were considered under this section of the Act as part of a discussion about financing roads and public transit.19 Congestion charges Congestion costs the GTHA more than $6 billion each year, and it costs Ottawa-Gatineau $200 million a year.20 Congestion pricing, such as the use of road tolls, can have an important impact on congestion. Congestion pricing provides an incentive for motorists to change their commuting behaviour. When faced with tolls during peak periods, many commuters will choose to flex their work hours to avoid peak periods, take public transit, telecommute, or look for work closer to home. People may also choose to commute as usual, but they will now benefit from shorter commute times. Pricing our collective resources appropriately allows us to use them more efficiently, i.e., less people trapped in traffic allowing them to do more productive things.21 Congestion pricing supports municipal and provincial objectives such as good air quality, promotion of transit, and reduction in sprawl. Congestion charges can also be linked to municipalities on the basis that the sources of the charges impact municipal expenses, including costs related to health, road, and transit. Depending on the technology used, the administration of congestion charges could involve costs for roadside infrastructure and operation, in-vehicle equipment and calculation of charges. 19 Kitchen, H. M. & Lindsey, R. (2013). Financing Roads and Public Transit in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Report Prepared for the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario. 20 Province of Ontario. (n.d.) Moving Ontario Forward: Modernizing our infrastructure. Retrieved from: http://www.ontario.ca/government/moving-ontario-forward 21 Wood, Joel. (2012). Canadian cities can look to London and Stockholm for traffic solutions. Fraser Forum, 11-12.

Recommendation: That the current “Heads and Beds” rate of $75 be phased-in to $140 beginning in 2016 and reset every 5 years with each review of the Municipal Act, reflecting inflation in the consumer price index.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_01m25_f.htm%23s40s1

15


Using evaluation criteria, • Efficiency: In theory, tolling individual roads is optimal for either congestion relief or

revenue generation if all roads can be tolled and the tolls can be freely differentiated by road, time of day, and vehicle type.

• Accountability and transparency: Like parking fees, road tolls are accountable because of the link between payment and consumption of a service.

• Consistent, sustainable revenue yields: Toll revenues are similar in consistency and sustainability to revenues from parking fees. Both vary roughly in proportion to the amount of vehicle travel.

• Fairness or equity: The equity effects of tolling are sensitive to how it is implemented. Horizontal equity generally improves with geographical scale and availability of alternatives. Tolling all 400-series highways would spread the benefits and costs of tolling more evenly through the region. Equity will also be affected by how much investment in roads and public transit occurs.

• Ease of implementation: Road pricing will be more costly and difficult to implement than existing and well-established revenue sources.

• Ease of administration: The costs depend on various factors including the technology used, the number of vehicle categories that are distinguished, time variation in tolls, and so on. 22

Section 305: Sale of Debt Subsection 305(1) of the Act states that:

305. (1) A municipality may sell any prescribed debt payable to the municipality to any other person in accordance with the prescribed rules and conditions. 2001, c. 25, s. 305 (1); 2002, c. 17, Sched. A, s. 48 (1).

Subsection 305(2) grants the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the power to issue regulations to prescribe the types of debt for the purposes of section 305. To date, no regulations have been issued. We recommend that regulations be issued.

Section 110: Agreements for Municipal Capital Facilities Section 110 of the Municipal Act was introduced to empower municipalities to enter into agreements for municipal capital facilities. The section was promoted as an additional method of financing for Ontario municipalities and included the authority to privatize municipal assets. 22 Kitchen, H. M. & Lindsey, R. (2013). Financing Roads and Public Transit in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Report Prepared for the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario.

Recommendation: The Province should issue regulations under subsection 40(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 to permit municipalities to adopt road pricing mechanisms.

Recommendation: The Province should issue regulations to permit the sale of debt as provided in section 305.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_01m25_f.htm%23s305s1

16


As an example, the Town of Milton used agreements under Section 110 to facilitate servicing of various municipal assets within the Town’s secondary plan areas. The agreement encompassed services, timing, funding, development charge contributions, and voluntary payments, among other items. The agreement ensured cost sharing arrangements with all developing landowners within the secondary plan area. In 2006, restrictions were added to Section 110 which limited the provision of municipal capital facilities to situations where specific conditions applied. The limitations placed on Section 110 do not align with the Act’s spirit of broad powers. Further, several issues have arisen from the addition of restrictive conditions, including questions as to whether:

• All municipal agreements involving capital require one of the four triggers in subsection 110 (1)

• In situations when a trigger is not included, does it mean that a municipality may not enter into an agreement for capital?

• Does the change in legislation invalidate former agreements entered under the former wording of subsection 110(1), which said:

110. (1) A municipality may enter into agreements for the provision of municipal capital facilities by any person, including another municipality. 2001, c. 25, s. 110 (1).

We recommend returning to the original wording of section 110.

Section 203: Power to Establish Corporations Section 203 of the MA provides municipalities the authority to establish corporations in accordance with O. Reg. 599/06.

Our members have suggested that one of the most significant barriers inhibiting the establishment of municipal services corporations is the restrictive ownership structure prescribed in O. Reg. 599/06. Currently, Canadian municipalities outside of Ontario cannot partly or fully own Ontario municipal services corporations; Ontario municipalities cannot sell shares to the public; and Ontario corporations may not be able to partner with other entities.

Members have suggested that the province consider amending O. Reg. 599/06 to reflect changes proposed to the ownership structure of electricity distributors in Section 16 of Bill 112 An Act to amend the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998. The proposed amendment repeals section 73 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

Recommendation: That subsection 110(1) be amended to: A municipality may enter into agreements for the provision of municipal capital facilities by any person, including another municipality.

17


Another issue brought to our attention is the prohibition of using municipal services corporations for the provision of long-term care homes. We do not understand the restriction and believe it warrants reexamination.

If the province is interested in encouraging municipalities to take advantage of Section 203 of the MA, the province should reconsider the restrictions placed on municipal services corporations. MFOA encourages a review of O. Reg. 599/06.

Section 418: Investment A municipality does not have the power to invest under section 418 of the Act in a security other than a security prescribed under Ontario Regulation 438/97 “eligible investments”. O. Reg. 438/97 also covers related financial agreements, including forward rate agreements. Eligible investments MFOA has a keen interest in municipal investment powers since it provides investment pooling services to the municipal sector in partnership with the LAS, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Matters related to investment are routinely dealt with at the provincial-municipal Debt and Investment Committee representing municipalities, associations, investment dealers, rating agencies and several provincial ministries.23 MFOA, AMO, and other municipal members, submitted proposals to the Debt and Investment Committee for amending O. Reg. 438/97 Eligible Investments and Related Financial Agreements. Our position paper is set out in Appendix D. In addition to the proposed amendments found in MFOA’s position paper, MFOA recommends the following changes to the regulation:

• Prudent investor status: For many years, MFOA has been advocating for prudent investment standard to be applied to the One Investment Program. Our analysis shows that prudent investor status would result in an increase in the diversity of investments held by the program, which would mitigate some risks to the municipal sector and likely lead to greater rates of return.

• To invest in US dollar denominated securities: The current wording restricts municipalities from having a US dollar denominated account held at a Canadian institution. While this limitation is problematic for all municipalities, it is especially constraining for municipalities close to the US border that engage in US dollar transactions regularly.

23 The ONE Investment program is an investment pool run jointly by the CHUMS Financing Corporation (a subsidiary of the MFOA) and LAS (a subsidiary of AMO).

Recommendation: That O. Reg. 599/06 Municipal Services Corporations be reviewed.

mailto:http://www.oneinvestmentprogram.ca/wcm/OneInvestment/Home/OneInvestment/Home.aspx

18


Forward rate agreements O. Reg. 438/97 also deals with commodity hedges and other financial agreements. Hedges are recognized as a technique for fixing the price of needed commodities into the future, but there has always been a concern that hedging could encourage commodity price speculation at the municipal level. MFOA recommends that municipalities be granted the authority:

• To unwind commodity hedges: Hedges are recognized as a technique for fixing the price of needed commodities into the future, but there has always been a concern that hedging could encourage commodity price speculation at the municipal level. Legislators’ fear of speculation can lock municipalities into commodity hedges that no longer make business sense. A municipality with the sophistication to engage in hedging activities should be granted the authority and flexibility to unwind commodity hedges when the market acts in unexpected and unprofitable ways.

• To extend settlement period of bond forward agreements: Municipalities’ inability to enter into bond forward agreements with settlement periods 180 days or longer is unduly constraining. Settlement periods should be extended to 365 days to enable municipalities to lock in interest rates, when applicable.

• To collapse or sell bond forward agreements: Similar to the rationale for providing the authority to unwind commodity hedges, municipalities should be granted the authority and flexibility to collapse or sell bond forward agreements when appropriate.

Regional Variation Question: Do regional variations (e.g. economy, geography, demographics) present barriers to municipalities achieving long-term financial sustainability? If so, how can these challenges be addressed in the Municipal Act? Municipalities in Ontario exhibit significant variations on many different fronts, including amount of tax revenue collected, population size, infrastructure base, size of municipal staff, trends in population growth, area, tangible capital assets per capita, and trends in labour force growth. Table 5 illustrates the significant degree of variation over just a handful of potential indicators. Ontario municipalities differ in terms of nature, rural vs. suburban vs. urban, economic profiles, and geography, among other factors.

Recommendation: That O. Reg 438/97 be amended to provide the authority to: unwind commodity hedges; extend settlement period of bond forward agreements to 365 days; and collapse or sell bond forward agreements.

Recommendation: That O. Reg 438/97 be amended as set out in the CHUMS/LAS submission to the Debt and Investment Committee (Appendix D) and that the regulation be amended to provide: One Investment Program with prudent investor status; and the authority to invest in US dollar denominated securities.

19


Table 5: Summary statistics about the province

The mid 1990s saw a significant period of municipal consolidation in Ontario which went from 832 municipalities to our current number of 444. Notwithstanding this level of consolidation, Ontario continues to have many small municipalities. As the Chart 1 below indicates, Ontario is a highly urban province where most people live in a handful of urban municipalities but there remain a very large number of small municipalities where relatively few people live. Chart 1: Population Distribution by Population Thresholds

24 2013 Financial Information Return. Retrieved from: http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/Welcome.htm 25 Ontario Chamber of Commerce. (n.d.). 2015 Regional economic outlook: Summary of Ontario. Retrieved from: http://www.occ.ca/Publications/2015-Regional-Economic-Outlook/Ontario.pdf

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

0-5 5-20 20-50 50-100 100+Population Thresholds (ooo's)

Municipalities by Population Thresholds

% Mun.

% Pop

Minimum Maximum Mean Median 2013 Own purpose taxation $65K (Brethour) $3.7B (Toronto) $40M $4.9M 2013 Households 49

(Thornloe) 1.1M (Toronto) 18K 3.4K

2013 Cost of tangible capital assets $341K (Mattawan)

$18.2B (Toronto)

$282M $42M

2013 Municipal staff (FT, PT & seasonal)24

1 (Mattawan, Thornloe,

Kerns)

59,302 (Toronto)

529 78

Estimated population change by economic region (2012-2016)25

-1% (NE, NW)

6% (Toronto) 2% 2%

Estimated labour force change by economic region (2012-2016)

-1% (NE) 8% (Muskoka-Kawarthas)

2% 0%

20


Table 6 shows that over 60% of municipalities in Ontario have populations less than 10,000. There are 132 that have 2,500 or fewer and 107 of these (81%) are in the north. Small municipalities face a number of challenges that are different from urbans. Many of these jurisdictions having staffing challenges and they may also have modest assessment bases. In some instances these challenges are coupled with large land areas that push up service delivery costs. Table 6: Distribution of Municipalities by Population Range and Region

Population Ranges 0 2,501 5,001 7,501

% Prov Total

to to to to Regions 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 Total Eastern 16 25 19 11 71 16.0% Western 6 12 19 15 52 11.7% Central 3 5 3 4 15 3.4% Northeast 84 10 4 2 100 22.5% Northwest 23 5 2 2 32 7.2% Total 132 57 47 34 270 60.8% % Prov Total 29.7% 12.8% 10.6% 7.7% 60.8%

All of these variations coupled with the unique history of municipalities are what give each Ontario municipality its special character and why each municipality may present a distinct set of challenges. It is also why flexibility and broad permissive powers are so important in municipal legislation. In our view, the resource challenges (financial, staff capacity) are the most serious issues and these are difficult to address through amendments to the Municipal Act. From a legislative perspective, an Act that has broad powers, broadly interpreted, will give municipalities flexibility to deal with their unique circumstances. Other measures, such as targeted intergovernmental transfers and capacity building initiatives, will also be required.

Conclusion MFOA has specified recommendations with respect to the following areas of the Act:

• New revenue tools • Changes to existing tools • Investment powers • Regional variation challenges

MFOA supports a broad review of revenue sources. Municipalities are moving to long-term financial planning and asset management, therefore we support a review of new revenue sources for all municipalities as well a general review of provincial transfer programs and processes to ensure that provincial transfers are made in a way that supports provincial objectives for financial sustainability, including long-term financial planning and municipal asset management.

21


Appendix

Appendix A: Municipal Legislation Review Public Consultation Discussion Guide Questions Page Theme Question 8 Accountability

and transparency

• Do you know whether your municipality or school board has a code of conduct? If so, does it seem to be working effectively?

• Do you think there should be a greater range of penalties for violating a code of conduct?

9 Accountability and transparency

• Are there gaps in the current municipal accountability and transparency system? • What kinds of tools would support greater accountability and transparency in local

government? 11 Accountability

and transparency

• How might conflict of interest rules be made clearer for municipal officials and the public?

• Do you think the current rules prevent municipal councillors from participating in municipal decision making too often? Do you feel that your own councillor/board member (e.g. school trustee) has been able to represent your interests at meetings given these conflict of interest rules?

• Do you think municipal councillors need more support to comply with conflict of interest rules? For example, having a municipality make expert or legal advice available to them.

• How could public access to the decision-making process about conflicts of interest be improved?

• What do you think are the appropriate penalties for violating conflict of interest rules? • Who should enforce municipal conflict of interest rules?

12 Accountability and transparency

• Do you think there should be more options for municipal councils to use technology in holding meetings? (e.g., internet video conferences?) Please provide examples.

• Do you think that the public has appropriate access to council meetings? How could municipal council meetings be more transparent?

• Under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate for council to discuss matters in private? (e.g. personal information, security of the municipality)

• Overall, what do you see as the province’s role in supporting municipal and local board accountability and transparency? What do you see as your municipality’s role?

• How effective are the accountability and transparency requirements in the Municipal Act, City of Toronto Act and Municipal Conflict of Interest Act?

• How might accountability and transparency rules be made clearer for municipal officials, board members and the public?

21 Municipal Financial Sustainability

• Do you feel your municipality is able to effectively plan for and prioritize its investments in infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, water systems, public transit) and its spending on services (e.g. fire, police, water, garbage, public health, recreation programs)?

• Municipalities have a number of options when deciding how to pay for services and projects (e.g. property tax, user fees). Do you feel your municipality is using the right mix of revenue sources to pay for local services and invest in infrastructure?

• Are there changes to current tools that could contribute to municipal financial sustainability (i.e. ability to meet current and future financial needs)?

• Do regional variations (e.g. economy, geography, demographics) present barriers to municipalities achieving long-term financial sustainability? If so, how can these challenges be addressed in the Municipal Act?

24 Responsive and Flexible Government

• What steps is your council taking to improve the quality of municipal services or to save money in the way municipal services are provided to the community?

• Are you aware of any challenges and/or barriers that may prevent your council from

22


Page Theme Question providing municipal services, such as economic development, roads or parks, in a more effective and/or innovative manner?


• Has your local council integrated climate change considerations in its policies, programs and decision making processes?

• What tools do municipalities need to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?

• Are you aware of any challenges and/or barriers that your council is facing in implementing initiatives related to climate change?


• Does the Municipal Act process for changing regional municipal council representation allow regions to respond to changing demographics and/or rapid population growth? If not, do you have suggestions for how these issues can be addressed?

• How can local bodies, such as community councils, best be used to increase community input in municipalities?

23


Appendix B: Distribution of Local Government Tax Revenues, Selected OECD Countries, 2007 (%)26

Taxes on income, profits, and capital gains

Taxes on payroll and workforce

Real property taxes

Other property - related taxes

Taxes on goods and services

Other taxes

Total tax revenue

Federal countries Australia 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 Austria 31.2 20.7 5.1 5.9 32.4 4.7 100 Belgium 71.4 0 16.5 0 11.8 0.3 100 Canada 0 0 86.8 7.6 2.2 3.4 100 Germany 80 0 14.6 0 5.3 0.1 100 Mexico 0 0.2 52.2 36.4 1.5 9.8 100 Spain 22.8 0 21 8 44.3 3.9 100 Switzerland 84.6 0 2.5 12.7 0.2 0 100 United States 5.8 0 70.9 0 23.3 0 100 Unitary countries Czech Republic 55.7 0 2.6 0 41.7 0 100 Denmark 90.4 0 9.5 0 0.1 0 100 Finland 94.7 0 5.2 0 0 0.1 100 France 0 6.8 40.4 10.5 18.4 23.9 100 Greece 0 0 26.1 30.3 43.6 0 100 Hungary 0 0.2 11.5 9 79.2 0 100 Iceland 73.6 0 15.4 0 10.9 0 100 Ireland 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 Italy 21.5 0 11.7 1.4 29.5 36 100 Japan 55.5 0 24.7 1.2 17.7 0.9 100 Korea 17 1.4 14.5 33.3 21.8 11.9 100 Luxembourg 90.1 0 4.5 3.2 1.5 0.7 100 Netherlands 0 0 55.6 0 44.4 0 100 New Zealand 0 0 88.7 0 11.3 0 100 Norway 87.5 0 4.5 6.3 1.7 0 100 Poland 62 0 25 0.6 7.4 5 100 Portugal 21.6 0 28.5 26 23.1 0.9 100 Slovak Republic 73 0 12.4 0 14.6 0 100 Sweden 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 Turkey 31.4 0 8.5 3.5 41.6 15 100 United Kingdom 0 0 100 0 0 0 100

26 Slack, Enid. (2010). The Property Tax ... in Theory and Practice. Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance. Retrieved from: http://munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/uploads/72/property_tax_paperwithlogos.pdf

http://munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/uploads/72/property_tax_paperwithlogos.pdf

24


Appendix C: Tax Tools and Revenue Sources Available, Employed, or that Benefit the Cities27

Seattle Salt Lake Denver Lincoln Boise Minneapolis

Property Tax: General Property √ √ √ √ √ √ Property Tax: Special Assessments √ √ √ √ √ √ Property Tax: Special Business √ √ Property Tax: All Other √ Sales Tax: General Retail √ √ √ √

√

Selective Sales Tax: Lodging √ √ √ √ Selective Sales Tax: Restaurants √ √ √ √ Selective Sales Tax: Liquor √ √ √ Selective Sales Tax: Entertainment √ √ √ Selective Sales Tax: Car Rentals √ √ √ Selective Sales Tax: Gambling √ √ √ Selective Sales Tax: Other √ √ Business Tax: Utilities/Franchise √ √ √ √ √ √ Business Tax: Gross Receipts √

√

Business Tax: Employee Tax √

√ Business Tax: Other √ √

√

Other Tax: Real Estate Transfer √ √ Other Tax: Motor Vehicles √ √ √ √ √ Other Tax: All Others √ √ √ Tax-sharing: Income Taxes

Tax-sharing: General Sales Tax √

√ √ Tax-sharing: Fuel Taxes √ √ √ √ √ √

Tax-sharing: Motor Vehicle Taxes

√ √ √ √ Tax-sharing: Lodging Sales Tax √

Tax-sharing: Liquor Taxes √

√ Tax-sharing: Tobacco Taxes

√

Tax-sharing: Other Taxes √

√ √

27 Vander Ploeg, Casey. (2002). Big city revenue sources: A Canada-U.S. comparison of municipal tax tools and revenue levers. Canada West Foundation. Retrieved from: http://cwf.ca/pdf-docs/publications/Big-City-Revenue-Sources-September-2002.pdf

25


Appendix D: Section 418 Investments

26


One Investment Program Performance (returns are net of fees)

• Average S year portfolio balance ending December 31, 2012 = $259 million

Money Market • Annualized Return for S years ending December 31, 2012 = 1,52%

Portfolio • # of negative month end returns since 1995 portfolio Inception= 2

• Average 5 year portfolk> balance ending December 31, 2012 = $149M

Bond Portfolio • Annualized return for S years ending December 31, 2012 • 4.01%

• # of negative rolling 1 year returns since 1993 inception = 3

Universe • Portfolio Balance at December 31, 2012 = $39M Corporate • Annualized 4.5 year return at December 31, 2012 = S.94%

Bond Portfolio • Portfolio Inception was August 2008

• Portfolio Balance as at December 31, 2012 = $84M

Equity • Annualized 6year return as at December 31, 2012 • 2.91%

Portfolio • Portfolio Inception was hnuary 2007

The Case for includlng BBB Rated lu ues in One Bond and Corporate Bond Portfolios

In the period since LAS and MFONCHUMS tabled our requested changes, Tanya Wanio approached staff for additional supporting infonnation. We request that the Ministry consider the following information before any amendment decisions related to the Eligible Investment Regulation are made.

The following infonnation obtained from both Moody's Investors Service and MFS McLean Budden demonstrates a very favourable experience related to the addition of BBB credits to a bond portfolio. The Annual Default Study: Comorate Defuult and Recovery Rates, I 920-20!2 released by Moody's Investors Service on February 28, 2013 is included with this letter. The pertinent points from this document related to our request are summarized below.

• Of the 58 global corporate issue defaults occurring in 2012, only one was rated as investment grade (exhibit 16, page 19). Investment grade is defined as "BBB3" or higher by Moody's.'

• Of total global corporate issue.defaults in 2012, only one default was a Canadian corporation (exhibit 16, page 19). This corporation, Catalyst Paper Corporation was not rated investment grade.

• Over the 31-year period from 1982 to 2012, the average annual loss for all BBB rated global credit was 0.13%. In 14 of these years, the annual loss for all BBB rated issues was 0%. There are two instances in the last five years when the loss by A rated credits exceeded the loss incurred by BBB credits (exhibit 23, page 26)

• For the period of 1920 - 2012, there were zero BBB defaults in 60% of the years (exhibit 30, pages 31-33).

I The Rattngs Table Is found on the MultJple Mw1u:l:S wcb~Wal u~ fullvwio¥ Liulr.. hnp://multiplc·marlcccs..coml3ratinp:hart.htm

27


• The mean difference in default rates betw.:en A and BBB graded corporate issues over the period of1994 to 2012 was only 0.0\?'A, in favoll' of the A graded issues (exhibit 39, page 40).

We would note that with the One Investment Program, profes,ional investment portfolio managers control all investment risk within our allowable inveslment universe. In the case of the One Bond and Universe Corporate Bond Portfolios, our portfolio manager, MFS McLean Budden, has more than 50 years of experience with a track re<ord of zero defaults.

MFS McLean Budden is of the opinion that there are numero1s benefits related to the introduction of BBB-rated bonds into the Eligible Investment Regulation for the One lnveslmcnt Program. Their submission to the One Program is attached as Appendix B.

In the context of an overall Canadian investment grade bond portfolio, there arc several potential benefits to introducing BBB-rated bonds:

• Enhanced yield: BBBs generally offer higher yields than higher-grade issues in order to compensate !he investor for the additional perceived risk.

• Capital appreciation: An inveslment in BBBs may generate capital appreciation in !he event of improving company fundamentals, an upgrade, or healthier ma<roeconomic landscape.

• Spread cushion: BBBs possess a spread cushion that should provide some measure of protection for total return in !he event that interest rates rise.

• l>iversifieation: BBBs have lower correlations to olher sectors of the bond market relative to higher-grade bonds and therefore provide diversification benefits.

Adding an allocation to BBB-rated corporate bonds to a portfolio has the potential to enhance !he overall yield and return. Over the past 20 years, the spread between BBB and A rated corporate bonds -the BBB/A quality spread- has averaged 14 basis points (bps} within the DEX Short Tenn Bond Index and 61 bps within the DEX Uni,ersc Bond Index over the same period. (Source: PC Bond) MPS Mclean Budden (MFS MB) also points out that an annualized I 0-year return from a portfolio with a I 0% allocation to BBB credit was actually 14 bps higher wltile having a lower risk profile.

Wltile noting that BBB rated bonds carry greater risk than do higher grade issues they note that appropriate risk management processes should be put in place, to limit position sizes on individual BBB issues or issuers and a maximum aJlocation limit to BBB credits within a ponrouo. At MFS MB, in addition to lirojts for BBB :,ceurities, fisk is further controlled tluouglt rigorous in-house credit analytics, which augments !he work done by the credit rating agencies.

The in-home credit analysis capacity at MFS MB offers municipal investors in the One Universe Corporate Bond Portfolio a significant benefi~ with the benefit continuing if the portfolio was to include BBB credits. Most municipalities acknowledge that they do not have the intemal staff resources rC(luired to properly analyze, review and monitor these credits, whereas, MFS MB has a team of six dedicated credit analysts and extensive systems that support !hCl'Ough reviews, analyst recommendations, portfolio analysis, trading, and compliance.

28


29


30


31


32


Fixed Income

Through the municipal \VOrking g roup, One undenook a revie\V of how municipal investors w ere using the existing Money Market and Bond Portfolios, and \Vhether there \Vere changes that could be made t o the ponfolios. to ensure a bener match betw een m unicipal investm ent horizons and the management of the ponfolios.

One staff and the \VOrking group also consulted w ith the current inV'estment managers and the external CFA consultant to identify oppontunities and risks related to an expansion of the investment mandate, both from an investor and also a poniolio perspective. Small changes \Vere made to the investment guidelines related to the One Bond Pon-folio, but more significant ch anges for the Money Martcet

Ponfolio resulted from this review process:

1} Change of the portfolio management guidelines. including lengthening the average term of the existing ponfolio to ben er reflect actual investment time !hor izons.

2} Change of the portfolio benchmark from the 30 day T-bill i ndex to the 182 T-bill index.

3} Change of portfolio manager to achieve a more focused and advantageous inv estm ent

strategy, consistent \Vit h investor expectat ions.

The revie\V also found a need for a medium-long term bond investment option for the sector. given the ne\V powers granted to the One Program via 0 . Reg. 655/05. It \Vas deemed appropriate to launch a

ne\V corporate bond poniolio, rather than alt er ing th e focus and pu:rpose of the exist ing short-medium term One Bond Portfolio, as it may have resulted in some inappropr iate invest ment s by existing portfolio investors.

A ne\V Universe Corporate Bond {UCB} Portfolio \Vas designed to provide municipal investors the ability

to bett er match the time horizon of the secur ities with the t ime hor1izon of longer term liabilit ies. The portfolio is managed to have asi milar duration as the DEX Universe Bond Index, in keeping \Vith the long term nature of infrastructure reserve funds. In addition it provides i nvestors w ith the oppon unity to improve earnings through its foous on very high quality corporate is.sues.

Shares of Canadian Corporations

0 . Reg. 655/05 also prov ided m unicipalities w ith the ability to invest in Canadian equity investm ents. b ut this power w as granted only thro ugh the One Investm ent Program. Alt hough a desirable expansion of the investment regulation, this new investment opponunity present ed a significant challenge for the

One Program, in that only 'shares of Canadian corporations' are elig:ible investments and the Canadian equity market is limited in terms of quality and diversification by bot h industry sector. and specific securit ies.

In 2006. One staff, along w ith our independent CFA consultant and w orking group, set to develop

investm ent guidelines for the po rtfolio. It was discovered that th e Ganadian equity market w as heavily dominated by three sectors: Financials, M ater ials and Energy, \Vhictl represented a total of 75.9% of th e martcet capitalization of the S&P f TSX Composite Index at De, em ber 31, 2006 - see belO\V table. In

addition, of the remaining se<tors there was a limited sele<tion of high qualitY companies that had proven track records of stable performance an d steady dividends, v,hich is exact ly the type of

investm ent desired by the One Program for our municipal investors.

3

33


At December 31, 2006

SECTOR S&P / TSX Composit e MSCI W orld

Consumer Staples 2 .6% 8.0%

Consumer Discretionary 5.2% 11.4%

Industr ials 5.3% 10.7%

Ut ilities 1.5% 4.4%

Telecom Seivices 5.0% 4.5%

Energy 27.9% 9.1%

Inform ation Technology 3.7% 10.4%

Healthcare 0.8% 9.2%

Financials 31.9% 26.4%

Mat erials 16.1% 6.0%

In contrast, the global equity market s \Vere, and continue to be, more broadly d iversified across the

industry sectors, as demonstrate d in the table below.

Group 8 Sector Allocation$ at J<1n 20 07

M SCI World Sector S& P T SX Sector M SCI Wor ld GIC Sector Weiaht inas Weiahtinas

Resource 15.10o/o 44.00o/o

Energy 9.10% 27.90% I Materials 6.00% 16.10%

Con sorrier 28.GOo/o 8.60o/o Health Care 9.20% 0.80% Cons!Jmer Discretiona'"'' 11.40% 5.20% Consumer Staoles 8.00% 2.60%

Interest Sensit ive 30.SOo/o 33.40o/o

Financials 26 .40 % 31.90% I Utiltties 4.40% 1.50%

Industrials 25.GOo/o 14,00°/o Industrials 10.70% 5.27 ln fonnation T echnolon" 10.40% 3.72 Telecom Services 4.50% 4.97

The challenge faced by the One Program given the abov e facts, was to design a portfo lio structure that

\VOUld m inim ize risk, ensure appropriate d iversificat ion, and rem ain co'l"lpliant w ith the Municipal Act

Eligible Inv est ment regulat ion lim itation to invest only in shar es o f Canadian corporat ions. This

challenge is not faced by other sim ilar institutional investors, includ ing Housing Services Corporation

(form erly Social Housing Services Corporat ion), OMERS, and Teachers; these organizat ions have the

4

34


I

abil ity to gain effective diversificat ion while maintaining liquidity through the indusion of Income Trusts, Real Estate Investm ent Trusts as w ell as shares of non-Canadian issuers.

In addit ion, as a broad. diversified investm ent universe \Vas not available to One, a customized ponfolio structure was designed for the One Equity portfolio to ensure a minimal amount of r isk and maximum investm ent diversificat ion for municipal investors.

The portfolio structure developed by One requires the poniolio manager to maintain broad industry diversificat ion similar to that exhibited in global equity markets (via the MSCI world sector \Veight ings) \Vhile st ill adher ing to the Municipal Act Eligible Investment regulation limitat ion of investm ent in only shares of Ganadian corporations. The One portfolio benchmark superimposes the MSCI world sector \Veightings over the S&P/TSX to create a diversified portfolio of eligible investment options for the One

Equity Portfolio. The benchmark is review ed and amended t\Vice each year; the original allocation for the One Equity Portfolio is belo\v.

Group & Sector Allocat ions as at Jan 2007

... 1SCI Wortd S&PTSX Sector Sector Relative Relative Actual A~ual

Grouo MSCI Wortd GIC Sector Weiahtinas Weiahti:nrK Minimum ._1aximum ._1inimum Maximum

Resource 15.10% 44.00% 50% 150% 7.55%

Ener"'v 9. 10% 27.90% 2 times sector

._ta.serials 6.00% 16.10% weioht

Consumer 28.60% 8.60% 75% 125% 2 1.45%

Health Care Q.20% 0 .80% 2 times

C¢nsumer Discretionary 11.40% 5.20% sector C¢nsumer Staoles 8.00% 2.60% weioht

Interest Sensitive 30.80% 33.40% 75% 125% 23.10%

Financials 26.40% 3 1.90% 2 times sector

Util ities 4.40% 1.50% weiaht

In dustrials 25.60% 14.00% 75% 125% 19.20%

I industrials 10.70% 5.27

I information Technology

I 10.40% 3.72 2 times

I I I Telecom Seivices sector

4.50% 4 .97 weiaht

Over the six years the One Equity Portfolio has been available to municipal invest ors, the portfolio has performed as expected by balancing risk managem ent \Vith reasonable performance over the longer term. This is evidenced in the belO\V chart w it h a compar ison to the S&P TSX performance.

22.65%

35.75%

38.50%

32.00%

5

35


25.0

20.0

15.0

10 .0

5.0

0 .0

· 5.0

·10 .0

-15.0

· 20.0

· 25.0

One Benchmark vs . S&P TSX Com posite

• one Eq uity Benchmark 8 S&P/TSX Composite

During the Non h American credit cr isis of 2008, the design of the One Equity Ponfolio provided significant: capital prot ection to invest ors, consistent \Vith its design. With the custom benchmark. the

One Equity Portfolio was designed to minimize. as much as possible, extreme 1negative returns through appropriate diversificat ion, \Vhile also providing near market returns on the upside. In short, the One Ponfolio w as designed not to chase returns in a r ising market; instead the ponfolio invests in proven and predictable companies that continue to grO\V over t ime.

To ensure effect ive oversight. r isk control, and portfolio operat ion. LAS and CHUMS staff continue to rev iew the portfolio operat ion per iodically, and th e One Program Advisory Committee formally meets \Vith th e p ontolio manager semi 4 annuaUy.

A formal r,eview of all four cur rent One Program pontolios is conducted annually by One' s independent CFA consu ltant. in order to assess if the performance of the One Program portfolios are acceptable, both from a ret urns perspective but also a risk managem ent perspective. The findi ngs of these annual rev iew s are shared by LAS and CHUMS w ith the One Program Advisory Committee, and are also summarized in the program' s year 4 end repon to investors.

One Program Commitment to Investor Education and Support LAS and CHUMS believe that developing an appropriate investment ponfolio approach is not enough; since the e xpanded investment po\vers \Vere granted to the One Program via 0 . Reg. 655/05, LAS and CHUMS have undertaken a committed effort to educate municipal staff and el ected officials about the

investment options available to them, their related responsibilities, investmen>! strategies, and oppon uni1:ies related to the One Investment Program. Our belief is that no investm ent opt ion should be considered by a municipality if the invest or is not a\vare of the investm ent type, potential risks. etc.

6

36


37


38


39


As of the end of the second quarter 2012, the size of the BBB-rated corporate bond market in the DEX Universe Bond Index was $87 billion and includes such Canadian household names as Rogers. Lobla\V, CP Rail, and Enbridge (Source: PC Bond).

"

898 V,\.. Co rpot:1t t> W.igh t OEX Universe Bol'ld Index

..

888 vs. Corpontc Wci,;ht DEX Short Term Bond Index

- IIU(c<'f(l"JII"~

- O.,,,,,l<Wpo••'""IJ,1

.. , .._ ____ ... . ....... ____ , 19!1) 1!))6 "" '"" 101) 1'92 "" ,.,. , .. lOll

Given the increase of BBB-rated corporate bonds, there is a much larger benchmark r isk than there \Vas 20 years ago associated w ith a portfolio that prevents investment in IO\Ver-rated investment grade (i.e.

BBB} issues.

Why consider allowing BBBs for the One Program portfolio?

Capital apprec:iation: An investm ent in BBBs may generate capital appre, iation in the event of improv ing company fundamentals, an upgrade, or a healthier macroeconomic landscape.

Spread cushion: BBBs possess a spread cushion that should prov ide some beneficial measure for t otal return \Vhen interest rates rise.

Diversificat ion: BBBs typically have had IO\Ver correlations to other sen ors of the bond market relative to higher grade bonds and th erefore may provide diversification benefits.

Enhanced y ield: BBBs generally have offered higher yields than higher-grade corporates in order to compensate investors for the slight addit ional risk.

Naturally, in the current y ield-starved env ironment, the last bullet point is the most attention grabbing.

A scarcity of income due to unprecedented low interest rates has made the y ields offered by IO\Ver grade issues especially attract ive. The following chart shows the spread relationship bet\veen BBB-rated corporates and Government of Canada issues w ithin the DEX Short Term Bond Index. (Source: PC Bond, as of June 30)

10

40


41


42


43


44


for credit opinions; rather, a good bond manager. using all the resources at els disposal, will fonnulate its own opinions on a partia.ilar issue(s cre<f.rtworthiness.

Benefits: Potent.al for greater ri.sk...adjusted portfolio returns, and benefits from diversification

In the context of an overaD Canadian investment grade bond portfolio, there are several potential benefits to introducing BBB-rated bonds:

• Enhanced yield: BBBs generaDy offer higher yields than higher11rade issues in order to compensate the investor for additional perceived risk.

• Capital appreciation: An investment in BBBs may generate capital appreciation in the event of improving company fundamentals, an upgrade, or a healthier macroeconomi:: landscape.

• Spread cushion: BBBs possess a spread cushion that should provide some measure of protection for total return in the event that interest rates rise.

• Diversification: BBBs have rower correlations to other sectors of the bond market relative to higher--grade bonds and therefore provide cfNersification benefits.

This last buDet deserves further discussion. The benefits of diversification ar,e derived both in terms of names and in terms of industries. For instance. the Canadian telcos are all BBBs: Bell, T el'us. Rogers, Shaw. J.1ost industrial names (Cameco, CP Rail as well as many <>f the consumer names (Loblaw, Canadian Tire) are BBBs.

The following table - which depicts ttlle corporate segment of the DEX Universe Bond Index - offers some perspective on the diversification benefits of including BBBs in a fixed income portfolio in terms of sectors. names, and issues:

# la&UN 3 16

l b auera 9

Size 768 3 8 2 8

l b &UN .. 9 6

# laaueta 10 3

Size 3 3 27 8 808 58 4-0 B 2 3

# la&UN • 119 130 15 113 5

l b auera 2 23 43 7 34 • BBB Size 33 8 208 178 18 8 98 58

l b &UN 56 72 37 .. 29 25

l laaueta 10 22 19 24 9 7

BBB Bell, Roqers, Tr.:.rlSAJta. BMO&CIBC Cameoo, CP 407frtt'I. Nova RioCan REIT.

ex.am plea T e!\15> Shaw Encal'\a, Uiion Tier 1 Capijal, Ral , Cdn Tire, Sootia Pov.-er, Fll"-t Capital

Gas Ford Oelf1 l obEaw Fortis Realty

obi Size 368 '68 1768 23 8 528 8 8 98

S01.1rce:PC BolVJi UFS f&eatl&mel'li as Of M.l.ltll 25,2013

19

10

818

81

1•

157 8

386

113

101 8

280

91

350 8

45


Simply put, a portfolio consisting solely of AAA, AA, and A-rated bonds wou.ld be very heavily weighted in govemment bonds and financials, 'A'hich is demonstratively riskjer than a well-diversified portfolio that includes BBBs. Using 10 years of OEX Universe Bond Index retums, the following !able shows how hypoll>etical portfolios will> varying amounts of BBB-rated bond 'A'eigh;s wouJd have performed:

5J)()%

10J)O%

15J)O%

20.00%

6.07%

6.14%

621%

629%

1.92%

1.91%

1.94%

2.01%

VJhile one may be inclined to believe that risk in lhe portfolio increases by adding BBBs, a responsible portfolio manager would actually be attempting to better manage risk while seeking better risk-adjusted retums. A 10% allocation to BBBs over the past ten years would have generated a higher return with a lower amount of risk than one with no BBBs. And an 18% allocation to BBBs over the past ten years wouJd have out-yielded a portfolio with a 0% allocation by 26bps with the same amount of risk.

The views expressed are those of ihe author, and are subject to change at atty tine. These views do not necessarily reflect the views of MFS Mclean Budden or others i\ the MFS Mclean Budden orgallization, and should not be relied upon as iwestment advice, as securities reoommendations, or as an indication of tracing intent on beha~ of any MFS i\vestment product

1 scenario a.'\3tf'SS uses oex ~ r.-erse eooo 1nCti:-x ·•'e!ljlms ano ~1r.:ns cy sector: ~erai IJCnl~ plO'K!rial DOM~ m-nq:>;11 DOnCt~ AMI.AA corpo~ A GOIJl(Q~ ano 633 c«poraies.. Non-883 sector sceru.rio w.ign:is Cterio'eO in proportion io IJleir 'Neignt in !l'le ~ .x. ee,_,arnant re rums 11$€0 iOr 111e *n-ya peioo enceo Decemt>er 3 1, 2012..

46


AppendixC

To: The one investment Program

From: Brian Holland, Senior Vice President, Guardian capital LP

Date: March 27"' 2013

Re: Rational for the inclusion of Real Estate Investment Trusts in a canadian Equity

Portfolio

This memo is support of t he One Portfolio proposal for allowing Real Estate Investment Trusts as a permissible investment in t he One Investment Program canadian Equity portfolio used by Ontario Municipalities.

Measurement: At t he end of February, the S&P/TSX Composite Index has a 2.7% exposure to REITs. One of the central principals of investment managemen: practice is that portfolio results should ideally be measured against a benchmark where the manager can invest in the underlying securities. At present, the One Portfolio canadian Equ ity strategy is measured, albeit by a small amount, against t he performance of REITs in the S&P/TSX Composite lr>jex and these are not permissible investments.

Performance: Below is a comparison of the S&P/TSX Composite Index versus the S&P/TSX capped REIT Index'. As indicated, this 'sub-group' of assets has performed well.

Comparison of the S&P/TSX Capped REIT Index vs. the S&P/TSX Composite Index (Total Retum %) Ending December 31ct2012

S&PJTSX Cdn R8T Total Return S&PJTSX Composite Total Return

1 Yr 2 Yrs 3 Yrs 4 Yrs 5 Yrs 6 Yrs 7 Yrs 8 Yrs 9 Yrs 10 Yrs

16.97

7. 19

19.30

·1 .08

20.39

4.79

28.29

11.65

10.83

0.8 1

7.89

2.26

10.15

4.28

11 .94

6.58

12.16 13 .47

7.43 9.22

Portfolio Exposure: Guardian capital has a specialty practice ir managing REIT portfolios and we are therefore very familiar with most of the quality oriented REITs in Canada. Current REITs held in all Guardian capital portfolios is approximately $600 mill ion. At this time, for the One Portfolio we would be investing in only Riocan, the largest REIT in canada, specializing in shopping malls and retail facilit ies. The current yield on this secu rity is 5.17% and its total market capitalization is $8.1 billion. Typically, the portfolio will hold approximately 2% in any one particular investment .

Diversification: REITs are contained within the Financial sector of the S&P/TSX Composite Index. By allowing these secu rit ies, the portfolio has the opportunity in to increase diversif ication in the Financial sector beyond the traditional banking and insurance company holdings. In certain market cycles, t he ability to hold securities other than banking or insurance companies may help reduce portfolio risk and/or enhance results.

I Note chat tile S&PJTSX Capped REIT lll.d!i. is ooc II sub·set o: r.ht S&PIISX Col!!pOSite and 1;-sh.oi\-n from il:ilStt.tth>e purposei. The REJT membership .ud v,;-eigilts. d!mfore. may di1feJ betv.-een rndice..

47


Investment Opportunity: At the end of February 2013, there were 15 REITs included in the S&P/TSX Composite Index. As with all asset classes, the quality of the secu rit ies vary, however, as portfolio managers we believe that this is a sufficient number of securities to select from in order to perform our analysis and to make comparisons for valuation purposes.

d1aracteristics: REITs are generally lower growth securities that pay most of their profits to unit holders. Below is a comparison of market statistics of a selection of REITs versus both the S&P/TSX Composite Index and the f inancial sector. This analysis is based on the Morningstar {CPMS) analysis as of March 26"' 2013.

S&P TSX Composite Financial

Selec:tion of REITs Sector

Number of Securities in Analysis 240 89 22 Expected Yield % 3.09 2.82 4.99

5 yr normalized Dividend growth (%/yr) 8.18 3.76 1.43 long Tern1 Oebt to Equity Ratio 0.47 0.40 0.83 5 yr normalized sales growth (%/yr) 3.99 2.10 -1.66

5 yr normalized earnings growth (%/yr) 6.08 10.49 32.05 10 yr normalized earnings gro\Vth (%/yr) 9.42 4.21 5.87 Current Price/ Book ratio 1.86 1.13 1.21

current Valuations: REITs currently looks expensive on some relative index measures but more reasonable when compared to the price-to-net-asset values. {NAV) and comparative U.S. REITs. Below is a long term illustration of the valuations of REITs versus their NAV.

canadian REITs: Public valuation versus value of net asset value of real estate holdings

Source: RBC capital Markets as of January 31, 2013 ,,

Outlook: We expect good cash flow growth into 2013 driven by healthy fundamentals, interest cost savings on debt refinancing, and accretive acquisitions. The sector should continue to benefit from continued stable outlook for commercial property fundamentals, valuation support from direct property markets, low interest rates, attractive relative yields, and good cash flow growth. From a stock selection perspective, we believe it remains prudent to maintain our bias to higher quality, mid to large cap companies at this time.


BY-LAW NO. 2015-50

Being a by-law to establish a Reserve Fund for certain purposes (The Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund)

Whereas pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Municipal Act”), sections 8(1) and 9 provide that the powers of a municipality under this or any other Act shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality’s ability to respond to municipal issues and has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purposes of exercising its authority under this or any other Act; AND WHEREAS the Municipal Act, section 290(4)(g) provides that a municipality may in preparing the budget for a year provide for such reserve funds as the municipality considers necessary; AND WHEREAS charitable donations are received by the District Municipality of Muskoka from time to time to be used for specific charitable purposes pursuant to established programs; AND WHEREAS Council for the District Municipality of Muskoka deems it desirable to manage such donations to the greatest extent possible in accordance with the wishes of individual donors; AND WHEREAS Council for the District Municipality of Muskoka wishes to create an advisory group with representation from Gateway Homes Muskoka Non-Profit Corporation that will provide input on a new charitable program to provide for affordable housing in the District of Muskoka (the “Program”). AND WHEREAS Council for the District Municipality of Muskoka wishes to establish a new reserve fund to hold all funds donated or received by the District Municipality of Muskoka for the purposes of the Program. AND WHEREAS Council for the District Municipality of Muskoka deems it advisable to establish the reserve fund in advance of finalizing the parameters of the Program. AND WHEREAS to facilitate the management of such donations it is desirable to set aside such monies received under such conditions and the proceeds of donations in kind received under such conditions in a specific fund; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. In this by-law:

(i) “Gateway Homes Muskoka initiatives” means a program to be established by the District Municipality of Muskoka for the purpose of a charitable program to provide and fund affordable housing initiatives with the District of Muskoka.

(ii) “terms of use” means the conditions imposed or directions given by a donor with respect to the use of a donation of money or in kind.

2. A Reserve Fund to be known as The Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund shall

be and is hereby established:

(i) for the deposit of any and all monetary donations received and/or the proceeds from the disposition of a donation in kind where the donation was made with terms of use similar to the Gateway Homes Muskoka Initiatives.

(ii) to support and fund Gateway Homes Muskoka initiatives and all costs and disbursements related thereto as Council may authorize in accordance with section 5 of this by-law.

3. All funds allocated to The Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund shall be recorded in The District Municipality of Muskoka’s accounting system as a separate account titled “The Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund” on or before December 31st in that respective year and may be invested in such securities as are permitted pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001. The earnings derived from the investment of such monies shall form part of The Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund.

4. The monies allocated to The Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund shall not be expended, pledged or applied for any purpose unless authorized by resolution of Muskoka District Council.

5. Muskoka District Council may, prior to expending any funds in accordance with section 4, consult with such persons, Committees and/or groups as it deems appropriate.

6. Where a donation in kind with terms of use similar to the Gateway Homes Muskoka Initiatives is received by the District of Muskoka and is disposed of, the proceeds of any such disposition shall be deposited in the Gateway Homes Muskoka Reserve Fund.

7. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary receipts for donations, whether money or in kind, shall only be issued in accordance with the Income Tax Act R.S.C. 1985 c.1.

8. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, any and all donations that are subject to

terms of use shall be managed in accordance with the Charities Accounting Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C. 10 and any other applicable or successor legislation.

9. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date it receives third

reading.

READ A FIRST AND READ A SECOND TIME: October 19, 2015 THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA Per: Chair Clerk READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED: October 19, 2015 THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA Per: Chair

Clerk


BY-LAW NO. 2015-51

Being a by-law to Confirm the Proceedings of the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka at this

meeting held on the 19th day of October, 2015 WHEREAS pursuant to section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, the powers of The District Municipality of Muskoka are to be exercised by Muskoka District Council; AND WHEREAS pursuant to section 5 (3), the powers of Muskoka District Council are to be exercised by by-law, unless The District Municipality of Muskoka is authorized to do otherwise; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that proceedings of the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka as herein set forth be confirmed and adopted by by-law; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The actions of the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka at this meeting held on the 19th day of October 2015 in respect of each recommendation contained in the Reports of Standing and Special Committees as adopted or amended and adopted and each motion and resolution passed and other action taken by the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka at this meeting is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law. The foregoing includes but is not limited to the reports enumerated in Schedule "A" to this by-law.

2. The Chair and proper officials of The District Municipality of Muskoka are

hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the actions of the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka referred to in section 1 herein.

3. The Chair and Clerk are authorized and directed to execute all documents

necessary to give effect to the actions of the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka referred to in section 1 herein and to affix thereto the Seal of The District Municipality of Muskoka.

4. Section 1 does not apply to any action or matter that is required by law to be

done by resolution. 5. Section 1 does not apply to any action or matter to which Ontario Municipal

Board or other approval is required until such approval is obtained but sections 2 and 3 apply for the purpose of obtaining such approval.

6. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the day it is passed.

READ AND PASSED THIS 19th day of October, 2015.

THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA Per:

Chair Clerk

of By-law No. 2015-51 Schedule "A" to By-law No. 2015-51

Reports Resol. No. District Council Resolutions 14(2015) – October 19, 2015

Engineering and Public Works Summary of Recommendations

PW-12-2015 – September 21, 2015 R105/2015; R106/2015; R107/2015

Community Services Summary of Recommendations CS-10-2015 – September 23, 2015 R58/2015; R59/2015; R60/2015; R61/2015; R62/2015; R63/2015; R64/2015

Planning and Economic Development Summary of Recommendations PED-11-2015 – September 24, 2015 R42/2015; R43/2015; R44/2015 Corporate and Emergency Services Summary of Recommendations

CES-11-2015 – September 21, 2015 R77/2015; R78/2015; R79/2015; R80/2015

THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA DISTRICT ... - CivicWeb

Documents

Transcript of THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA DISTRICT ... - CivicWeb