2011 Budget Presentation- Councillor Questions February 14 th

Councillor Bell

1. Provide a list of positions eliminated in 2010 with a reference of those being added back in 2011.

Planning, Engineering & Environmental Services

Plumbing Inspector 1 (90% OBC) - added back 2011 as Plumbing Inspector 11 (70% OBC, 20% WW)

Site Planner (1) – added back in 2011 (Development Planner/Site Plan Coordinator)

Construction Inspector (100% charged to capital) – added back 2011 Utility Co-ordinator /Construction Inspector

Operations & Transit

Summer Student Labourers – Turf Maintenance – added back in 2011 Summer Student Labourers

2. Is the $141,000 for the Sidewalk Inspector for inspection & repair? The City Budget used to include a $100,000 budget for sidewalk repairs.

The former Operations Department did have approximately $100,000 to replace sidewalk slabs prior to 2006.  It was eliminated as part of cost cutting initiatives at the time.  The rationale of the day was that as roadways were reconstructed, as part of Capital Roadwork activities, any sidewalk remediation could occur at the same time.  The Operations Department was left with funding to address uneven sidewalk slabs (‘mud jacking’) and trip hazards. 

The 2011 Budget request doesn’t change the scope of maintenance for the department.  The significance of the Provincially mandated change is it compels us to inspect ALL sidewalks and ALL regulatory traffic signs on an annual basis further compelling us to affect repairs of deficiencies noted within 14 days.  It is the frequency of inspection and the time table for repair that has changed.  The cost of the request is broken down as follows;

one permanent position at $70,900 for the year. $500 in recruitment costs $35,000 in funding to repair deficiencies identified. $20, 600 in mm dollars for a vehicle, (1700 hrs X $12.14/hr)

1

$2200 for a desk and cell phone $12,000 for a reflectometer, (to measure sign luminance) Total cost of expansion: $141,200

For 2012, the cost of this package will fall to approximately $128,000. (in 2011 dollars)

3. What does the $2.3 million for the Civic Precinct involve?

The breakdown is as follows:

2011 2012Transit Terminal $ 185,800 $ 1,208,972 Market Square Administration $ 28,500 $ 69,491 Market Square Events & Programming $ 31,600 $ 77,008 Museum $ 153,450 $ 311,999 Market Square Operations $ 206,700 $ 524,716 POA Courts $ 51,000 $ 51,813 Total $ 657,050 $ 2,244,000

The costs for 2011 are pro-rated to reflect the reduced months of operations for the Transit Terminal, Market Square and Museum.

Note that for both the Museum and POA Courts, these are only the incremental additional costs of being in the new facilities. Also, in 2012 there is $600,000 that has been allocated for Property Taxes. Currently, the entire amount has been allocated within Transit Terminal, but may eventually need to be split across the other facilities.

4. What have been the contracting costs for HVAC and plumbing over the last few years to justify these new positions?

Staff are requesting funding for a Preventive Maintenance Program, which would be a new service.  The funding request is to support 2 skilled trades – at the time of the budget submission, we identified HVAC & Plumbing as the two specific trades and speaks to a system review of Corporate Building Maintenance overall.

There is currently no budget for any work in this regard. The bulk of staff’s time is currently taken up by ‘demand’ or ‘reactive’ types of maintenance requests and not preventive maintenance.

Data for 2010 only reflects requests for repairs in our facilities completed by outside contractors due to our staff’s work load, lack of expertise, or the need for

2

specialized equipment to carry out the work.  Contracting out for this purpose = $266,000 (coding accounts for $105,800 electrical, $75,300 General Trades, $53,500 Plumbing, $31,700 HVAC).

In addition, 2011 anticipates 7 new Building Automation Systems coming on line to go along with the 6 systems currently in our inventory. Commissioning, monitoring, adjusting, and troubleshooting of these systems has put additional pressure on our HVAC staff. How to address this issue will be dealt with as part of the service review in Corporate Building Maintenance.

5. What would be the net change from bringing back the parking metres?

Assuming the meters are reinstalled by July 2011.

2011 2012Revenues ($362,000) ($725,000)Installation $120,000 $0Collection & Maintenance Labour

$18,000 (.3 FTE) $36,000 (.6FTE)

Parts & Equipment $6,000 $12,000Promotion $12,000 $0Life Cycle costs $50,000 $50,000NET Position ($156,000) ($627,000)

Councillor Guthrie

1. Special Events Parking Fees:

a. Why is there such a drastic increase for special events parking fees (ref. 7.20) & could this be detrimental to the success of special events in the downtown?

The preparation of the Corporate Budget included measures to address affordability. This proposal has been tabled to increase revenues to mitigate some increases within this area of operation. While there may be concern as to its impact on special event goers, the fee is only applied to the three major lots downtown. There are numerous other city owned parking lots that one may park free of charge that are in close distance to these venues. The $5 rate chosen is equal to or less than what other private property owners are charging for parking on their lots during special events.

3

b. What types of special events does this include & how many are done each year?

40 Storm games and various events at the Sleeman Centre and River Run.

c. How do we compare to surrounding municipalities with respect to what they charge for special event parking?

Kingston uses a flat fee of $3, $5, 0r $8 depending on how close you wish to park

City of Burlington uses a flat fee of $5 to $8 to park for special events

Kitchener, Centre in the Square $7 to park.

Private lots around the Sleeman Centre and River Run charge $5+.during special events.

Councillor Guthrie - CSS

1. Could we contract out for the HVAC position (ref. 3 .9)?

HVAC work is and will continue to be contracted out depending on the job. Our staff are primarily used to take care of ‘reactive’ or ‘demand’ work orders generated from the facilities when something has broken down. City staff will also be used for ‘preventive maintenance’ work orders although this type of work has been put on the back burner until we either add more staff or contract more of our ‘reactive’ work out. In 2010 more than half of the ‘preventive maintenance’ work orders generated were cancelled due to the lack of resources. In the 2011 budget we are looking for 2 FTE’s to remedy this situation.

Contracting out is an option, Council can request that the City Explore options to contract out any service. There are implications in contracting out where the work currently being performed involves bargaining unit members. And, it is not necessarily cheaper or more efficient to do that. Having your own staff take care of the day to day repairs and maintenance requires less supervision, there is no time lost for orientation of a new contractor or service tech, our staff take ‘ownership’ of the equipment and the problems, and it’s easier to maintain a documented history for each piece of equipment.

4

2. Why is there a 55% increase to the Civic Precinct operating budget (ref. 3.13)?

There are two drivers with respect to the 55% increase in the Civic Precinct budget shown on page 3.13. Biggest change is due to the addition of Market Square and the staffing and operating costs associated with running the splash pad and the rink in 2011. The other part belongs to adjustments made to City Hall. Mid-year adjustments added cleaners address complaints regarding the cleanliness of the building and repairs. 2011 includes incremental increases for goods and supplies e.g. janitorial supplies, equipment, and materials for repairs. Utilities were also adjusted to reflect 2010 actuals.

3. We have added 2 cleaners to the base budget (ref 3.15). How many cleaners do we currently have? Can we contract this service out? What warrants these additions?

Initially, there were three cleaners at City Hall in 2010. One (1) on day shift and two (2) on nights. Initially, one cleaner could not keep up with all the traffic through the washrooms due to other responsibilities such as set ups for meetings, shipping and receiving duties, and minor repairs. In the evening, there was too much floor area to vacuum for two cleaners. The current set up appears to be working well. In 2010, $33,000 was spent on contract cleaners at City Hall and will continue to be used for holiday and sick time coverage. As the Civic Precinct develops we foresee the need for continued use of contract cleaners, however, their work may be more focused after hours and City staff being used more during the day.

4. What is the reason for the following increases to the City Hall Maintenance operating budget (ref. 3.15):

a. $15,000 increase in Promotional Materialsb. $28,000 increase in Small Toolsc. $8,000 increase in Utilities

The $15,000 budgeted for promotional items is to be used for public events at City Hall and is offset with a reduction in advertising form purchased services departmentally. The $28,000 for small tools includes equipment for janitorial work and replacement parts for maintenance and repairs to various pieces of equipment at City Hall. City Hall is no longer under warranty so items that breakdown at this point are at the City’s expense. The $8,000 increase in utilities reflects an adjustment made in relation to our 2010 actuals. It should be noted that in 2010 the hours of

5

operation for the HVAC equipment at City changed from being on from 7am to 5pm to 7am until later in the evening due to our bylaw staff and others still working in the building after 5pm.

5. Market Square Operations (ref 3.17): what is their role to qualify these people to operate the outdoor space for $73,100?

These positions are required to operate what amounts to a swimming pool and arena complex (albeit outdoor) within the requirements of applicable regulations and best practices with respect to due diligence. In order to maintain these features accordingly, individuals require specific levels of training, operating licenses, experience and expertise and this is reflected in the salary. They will be required to make ice, run the zamboni, and maintain the Pavilion. Part time staff will also be used to monitor the activity on the ice.

6. Registration & Booking (ref. 3.23): Why have banking fees increased by $20,248?

Funds are projected to cover bank charges for clients using credit cards and debit payments originating in Class. Two trends are occurring: a) increased preference by clients for debt payments and b) negotiated service charge with financial institutions for these transactions. At time of budget preparation, the Finance Department was re-negotiating with our provider and we hope there will be some reduction corporately for this use.

7. River Run Centre (ref. 4.4)

a. Why is the City having problems renting the facility?The ongoing challenge to renting the facility is two-fold. First, there is a strong demand for weekend rental dates in the theatres, with weekend dates in the prime season for the Main Stage being booked at least 18 – 24 months in advance. Renting out the non-prime weeknights is more difficult, and there are many rental clients who opt to go elsewhere rather than have to take a non-prime weekday at River Run. Secondly, rates continue to be a challenge. Many community based organizations find the rates difficult to recoup through ticket sales, particularly the ancillary charges for hard costs that are charged on top of rent (technical labour, box office, insurance, etc…). It is for this reason that there is a proposal before Council to provide 1 technician included in the rent for Co-operator’s Hall, with the hope that we will increase usage in that space over the next 2 – 3 years.

6

b. Why has grounds maintenance increased?Grounds maintenance are the costs charged to River Run by the Operations department primarily for snow removal in winter and landscaping in the summer. The addition of the paved accessible parking lot for staff behind the facility (funded through the ISF program) required additional snow removal costs.

c. Why the increase to Box Office Services?The increase to Box Office services comes from a slight increase to expenses (for data processing to our online ticketing provider and for bank charges), but also from a decrease in revenues. Box Office revenue is generated through per ticket charges, and so with rental clients struggling to sell tickets through the economic slowdown over the past two years, the box office charges have also declined.

d. What is the $24,675 in the RRC Volunteer Program business unit?

The majority of the expense covers the cost of a part-time staff person who oversees the program, recruiting and orienting new volunteers, providing ongoing training and scheduling for the 250 volunteers at River Run. There is $4,000 allocated to cover the parking costs of the volunteers. Annually, it is estimated that the volunteer program provides savings of $100,000 to River Run’s operating budget by minimizing the number of staff needed to run events.

Councillor Hofland

1. For information purposes, could you please provide us with a breakdown of dollars spent in 2010 on consulting services in the operating budget? This can be shown as a percentage of total compensation paid in 2010.

As well, Councillor Hofland submitted a verbal request for information regarding consulting dollars.  Specifically, how much we spend corporate–wide on consultants, based on 2010 actuals, and how that compares to total staff compensation costs, and to total gross expenditures.

Consultants are typically used under a variety of conditions:

1. When the required expertise is not available in-house and it does not make financial sense to hire the appropriate expertise in-house on a

7

permanent basis, i.e. not required 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year (could be a one-off need or a periodic or infrequent need);

2. We do have the expertise in-house, but require 3rd party review or oversight;

3. We do have the expertise in-house, but do not have the capacity to perform the work – temporary increase in work load but can’t delay the work.

The information requested is:

Estimated total 2010 costs for consultants (Based on actual to date) =  $3.5 million

Total estimated 2010 staff compensation (salaries, benefits & allowances) – (Based on actual to date) = $122 million.

Total City expenditures (gross) – (based on 2010 budget as 2010 actual not yet available) = $221 million

Therefore, the cost ratios for consultants are:

2.86 % of total staff compensation costs, and

1.58 % of gross expenditures.

Councillor Findlay

1. Are there financial targets for "proper fuel efficient driving techniques" for the fleet life cycle analyst?

The description for the Fleet Life Cycle Analyst expansion position that was provided with the 2011 budget package is incorrect. Here is the correct description of the proposed Fleet Life Cycle Analyst position.

The value of all assets in the Corporation's Vehicle & Equipment Reserve is approximately $22,000,000. At present there is no one actively monitoring the performance of individual assets. With a reserve of this magnitude, it is important that the financial performance of each asset be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that fair and equitable MM (maintenance management) fees are being charged. As well, sufficient MM charges must be expensed to each asset over its life cycle so that there is enough funding available when the asset is due for replacement.

8

2. Cambridge hires students to undertake sidewalk inspection. How is their program different from what is proposed for Guelph?

The overall sidewalk inspection program requirements will be met in Guelph in the same fashion as in Cambridge. The difference in how this is accomplished however is the students hired in Cambridge are only responsible for the identification of the location of deficiencies whereas the Guelph permanent employee proposed will also assess and determine the type and scope of repair needed to be undertaken. This skill is beyond what one could reasonably expect a student with no experience to posessess.

In the Cambridge situation, in addition to the student involvement, they require a followup visit to each site by a permanent experienced staff member to first mark the location as a hazard and then assess the repair scope and method of repair to be utilized. While Cambridge was unable to provide staff with an overall cost for their program, we beleive the mult-employee approach along with redundant travel inherently creates a less than efficient operation. We proposed to muti-task one individual to assure all components of this work are undertaken as efficiently as possible.

One efficiency we believe can be realized as a result of our investigation is the acquistion of a bicycle and hand held data recorder for this purpose rather than use of a vehicle. The savings for 2011 would be $10,600 and annualized in 2012 at $20,600.

Councillor Kovach (submitted – February 10 th )

1. Please identify the increases in the 2011 budget that are not annualized. What is the total cost if approved of these services/positions?

See attached spreadsheet – Annualized Cost of Positions – 2011 Budget

2. Is there more detail available for the $218,700 being requested for new parks & trails (ref. 2.9)

Impact from Capital:   Pinch Park; Orin Reid Park, Phase 1; Trans Canada Trail, Wilson Farm Park

Wages                 $106,600Benefits               $ 38,300Materials             $ 16,300Internal                               $   57,500 (mm rates)                            $218,700

3. Regarding the F.A.I.R. program:

9

a. Had the City not previously backed this out as there were others in the community who were providing, perhaps not the same, but similar services?

The City has continued to provide FAIR assistance to adults as there are funds to support this program from foundations, or fundraising. There is a significant need in our community for this assistance as evidenced by the work of the Poverty Elimination Task Force, and last year we ran a waiting list of over 50 applicants. More than half of our requests are from individuals living on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) funded by the provincial government. A single individual in receipt of ODSP would receive approximately an annual benefit of $12, 240 for all of their expenses.

Research clearly demonstrates that recreation improves the prospects of a person’s mental and physical health, which leads to greater financial independence and benefits to the taxpayer.

b. Who are the other groups that provide assistance?

There are no other groups that provide fee assistance to the City’s recreation and leisure programs. The YM-YWCA offers subsidies for membership to their programs and services only and they too have experienced a steep increase in need during the past year. The Guelph Wellington Senior’s Association in recognition of this need as donated $5,000 to support access for low income seniors to the City’s recreation and leisure program

4. What are the 4 vehicles being requested for Solid Waste (ref. 2.3)? Does this mean we are buying out the lease for these vehicles?

The 4 vehicles to be purchased are to replace 4 rental vehicles (three pickup trucks and one van) with city-owned vehicles, in compliance with the City’s Fleet and Equipment Acquisition Policy. The Policy recommends vehicle ownership based upon previous work that demonstrated ownership is more cost-effective than renting on a life-cycle basis.

5. For Roads & Rights of Ways (ref. 2.3), the mandate form the province is to inspect and repair 700kms of sidewalks. Is this not what we have always done? What exactly are the legislative changes and how does this differ from what we have been doing?

Please see Question #2 – Bob Bell above for response

10

Councillor Furfaro (submitted – February 13 th )

1. List of all reserve accounts, balance in each acc’t and scheduled use?

See Attached Schedule A

2. What was the projected cost of the new museum when tendered? Are we on budget?

The total of the purchase order to the Contractor was $11,918,110. Currently the final costs are projected to exceed the PO. The additional projected costs are a result of the underground conditions at the site which required additional foundation work to support the above ground structure. Also, there was one change to the design post-tender to accommodate the functionality of the Museum. Final accounting has not been done as there is still outstanding work to complete. (Revised February 24th, 2011)

3. What is the city’s present debt load? What have the numbers been in the last 4 years? Yearly cost to service debt over last 4 years? Other than servicing the debt, has the city paid down any of the outstanding principal?

See Attached Schedule B

4. Pg. 22.1 “purchased services” Is this the budget line for councilor workshops/p.d.? What is the total amount allotted to councillors? What was the budget in 2010?

Purchased Services Budget 2010 Budget 2011Phone/computer 20,400 21,000 Training/conferences 24,000 39,000 Professional Development 20,000 25,000 Catering - 5,000 Courier 3,800 3,800 Integrity Commissioner - 6,300   $ 68,200 $ 100,100

Councillor Guthrie (submitted – February 14 th )

11

1. Could you break out your budget to show only your contractual obligations and allowing for the return to 52 weeks of service to our community by each department? (see question 6 below)

2. Please tell us what each reserve is and what amount is in each. – Finance (see Councillor Furfaro Question 1)

3. How much debt are we presently carrying? What is the cost to service this debt? (see Councillor Furfaro Question 3)

4. What amounts in principal are we paying off annually? (see Councillor Furfaro Question 3)

5. In regards to the museum – What was the projected cost? Are we on budget? (see Councillor Furfaro Question)

6. What is the total cost, across all departments of Grid Moves? With a department breakdown please.

INCREASES TO WAGESFROM 2010 TO 2011

EMPLOYEEGROUP

GRIDMOVE

ECOINCREASE

5 DAYSOR 2%

TOTAL INCREASE TO GROSS WAGES

TRANSIT $249,000.00 $186,000.00 $435,000.00LIBRARY $2,600.00 $52,000.00 $35,000.00 $89,600.00NUME $203,600.00 $386,400.00 $404,000.00 $994,000.00EMS $0.00 $105,700.00 $0.00 $105,700.00

CUPE 973 $21,600.00 $342,000.00 $240,000.00 $603,600.00CUPE 241 $0.00 $332,000.00 $359,000.00 $691,000.00

FIRE $40,000.00 $720,400.00 $0.00 $760,400.00COUNCIL $21,600.00 $8,500.00 $30,100.00

TOTAL $267,800.00 $2,209,100.00 $1,232,500.00 $3,709,400.00

Some notes to the chart:

1. CUPE 241, EMS and Transit have single wage grades, so no grid moves would exist

2. Turnover in the NUME group resulted in replacements at lower steps in pay grades, resulting in grid moves for the next year

3. Fire and EMS did NOT participate in the 5 days off in 2010.

Councillor Bell (submitted February 14 th )

12

1. Can I have the cost of fall and spring leaf pick-up

Operations – Leaf collection (Fall only)

For the fall loose leaf program, please see page 7.4 in your budget binder under account Leaf Pickup. 

Environmental Services – Yard waste program (Spring & Fall)

Yard waste collection, under the direction of Solid Waste Resources, is provided to Guelph residents once in the spring and once in the fall.  The cost for this service is budgeted in the 2011 operating budget at $84,000.  This service will be discontinued once the conversion to fully automated cart collection has been completed by the end of 2014.  The conversion to fully automated cart collection will be phased in over three years beginning in the fall of 2012

Councillor Kovach (submitted February 15 th )

1. Pg 3.15 the addition of 2 cleaners added to the base in 2010...were these positions approved through the budget process in 2010? If so, then why are we seeing this as $ budget changes in 2011? This page also shows a change of 2 FTE's however the explanation above looks like there is actually 3.

Mid-year service adjustments were required to respond to serious complaints and to mitigate health risks at City Hall. Financial implications of the midyear adjustment were managed within the department and corporate expenditure of 2010. Some offset of the salaries are expected in 2011 with cross charges to the Market Square operational budget and POA.

The issue: External pest control contractors were required to attend

City Hall on 6 separate occasions to deal with a significant mice infestation, which also resulted in an extensive clean up, change in cleaning schedules and minor repairs.

Active use of City Hall requiring increased room ‘set ups’ resulted in janitorial staff not achieving base level cleaning of washrooms, kitchens and public meeting space. (2,000 meeting occurred in public rooms in 2010 averaging 180 per month).

13

Further, night time booking of City Hall increased (149 evenings to host 300 more meetings) which required addition set up/take down – time which was not originally projected.

Responding to Shipping and Receiving responsibilities impacted on day time janitorial employee.

Construction on Carden/Market Square further impacted on the base maintenance of the facility.

At its start, City Hall had 3 FTE custodians plus $33,000 in contracted cleaning services. The IFMA (International Facility Management Associations’ recommendation for janitorial staff for a facility of this size is 6.7. Therefore, 2 additional cleaners were added to meet a basic standard of care for this facility.

Page 3.15 also speaks to “one additional mechanical technician not currently showing in RAC”. This is an internal housekeeping note to Finance to advise that the pro forma for City Hall was to include a designated maintenance technician, yet the operating budget and position count does not show as resourced. We are continuing to review this matter.

2. Would you please provide the $ amt change from 1.75 to 1 FTE for shared rental housing - pg 7.18

A reduction of .75 would be $65,000. Such reduction will limit the time in which Bylaw Compliance staff will be able to address SRH concerns. Since this is a new program, staff are unable to determine the degree such a reduction would have on our effectiveness.

14

Through the pilot we utilized 1 FTE (2 part-time staff) and found that their schedule did not cover all issues. We did attempt to resolve the deficiency by changing their schedule from a start time of 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., however we still found that they were unable address matters that arose after their shift, most of the issues at this time were related to patrons of the downtown returning to their residences.

3. 7.20 - wages and benefits there are no additional FTE's yet it is up 18.5% - please explain

There were a number of omissions in the 2010 budget for Bylaw Compliance staff. These have been corrected for 2011.

23,900 - missing statutory pay 20,700 - missing employee compensation from 2010 budget79,200 - charged to wrong account in 2010 10,300 - reinstatement of the 5 days off800 - part-time wage increase/compensation/OT

Totalling $134,900

The remaining increase to wages ($20,000) is to cover grid moves and reinstatement of 5 days off of other parking staff.

4. 8.1- salaries are up 10% yet there was a 2% settlement- please explain why this is so high

a) Contractual Labour

Salary

NUME $66,000Perm Transit $318,000Temp Other $18,000Temp Transit $178,000Overtime ($19,000)

$561,000Benefits

NUME $35,000Perm Transit $174,000

$209,000

Self Funded Days $215,000

15

Total Labour $985,000

5. 1.25 shows an adjustment for training and development reinstatement of 420,000. How much overall do we spend on training and development and is this the cumulative total contained within this budget (as there are training requests increases requested within individual budgets?

Training & Development by Division:

Division

2010 Approved Budget

2010 YTD Actuals

2011 Requested

Base Budget

2010/2011 Variance

CAO Administration 26,600 14,202 26,600 -Mayor & Council 25,800 9,645 40,950 15,150Information Services 49,450 55,715 105,600 56,150Finance 24,200 17,055 55,214 31,014Emergency Services 105,744 76,711 224,644 118,900Economic Development 25,500 16,507 27,100 1,600 Community Energy - 5,782 12,352 12,352Downtown Renewal - 11 4,184 4,184General Expenditures 90,400 83,328 86,400 (4,000) Strategic Planning & Corporate Initiatives - (2,709) 15,000 15,000O&T Administration 85,000 45,266 101,200 16,200 Roads & Rights of Way 200 - - (200) Fleet 16,200 8,911 18,600 2,400Parklands & Greenways 2,950 6,195 2,450 (500) Traffic & Parking 8,600 9,990 25,800 17,200Transit 15,000 17,792 33,000 18,000 PEES Administration 5,000 1,508 5,400 400Planning & Building 34,850 30,749 52,400 17,550 Engineering 14,650 13,704 45,900 31,250Solid Waste 41,000 41,206 46,100 5,100CSS Administration 8,200 5,823 30,400 22,200Parks & Recreation Programs and Facilities 9,600 5,728 22,400 12,800 Community Engagement 5,800 18,510 7,725 1,925 Arts, Culture and Entertainment 13,700 11,233 14,700 1,000 Corporate Building Maintenance 5,750 17,139 8,600 2,850 Civic Precinct 400 578 5,000 4,600 Administration & Customer Service 800 2,066 1,800 1,000 HR&L Administration 155,700 108,251 170,400 14,700 Human Resources 1,000 4,827 1,000 - Legal Services 12,700 4,519 12,700 - Court Services 9,900 7,509 11,079 1,179Grand Total 794,694 637,750 1,214,698 420,004

16

COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS (FEB 14 & 15 Budget Presentations)

Community & Social Services:

1. Can staff identify 2 or 3 scenarios to reduce the 2011 proposed CSS budget by 5%? Please identify risks and impact to 2012 budget of any reductions

(Separate schedule February 19th – revised February 22nd)

2. Question from Councillor Laidlaw regarding the Structural Assessment & Repair request as per the 2011 budget.

BACKGROUNDFor the purpose of clarity, of 154 structures:32 were identified as ‘high’ risk38 are identified as ‘medium’ risk84 are identified as ‘low’ risk

Assessments completed to date:32 ‘high’ risk buildings4 “medium’ risk buildings.

BREAK DOWN – ORIGINAL REQUEST (2011 CAPITAL BUDGET)Work plan Original Request for 2011 of $2.6M was based upon the following work plan:

2011 Complete Medium & Low risk assessments $ 612,000 Complete all High risk repairs (estimated) $ 1,114,000 Complete all medium risk repairs $ 960,000

$ 2,686,0002012 Low risk repairs $613,000

3. Council asked if staff were comfortable with the current budget proposal.

The Proposal before Council is for $1.3M for 2011 and repeated into future years until structural repairs are completed, based upon the assessments.

FOLLOW UP INFORMATION After further review and discussion and acknowledging both the issue of risk to the Corporation and the affordability issue for the municipality, staff would like to respond with the following information, for your consideration.

Work plan for 2011 Complete all remaining risk assessments $612,000 Complete all High risk repairs $1,114,000

17

Complete 50% of medium risk repairs $480,000 =========== $2,203,000 total for 2011 Work plan for 2012

Balance of medium risk repairs $480,000 Low risk repairs $613,000

=========== $1,093,000 total for 2012

Operations & Transit:1. Can staff identify some adjustments in the Transit budget to continue the 20

minute service in the summer and allow for one statutory holiday (preference is July 1st). Is there the possibility of changing some of the 20 minute routes to 30 minute services (e.g. University), but leaving others (e.g. Industrial)? What is the impact of this?

20 minute summer service and the statutory service can be provided through the following adjustments to the Transit component of the budget:

- to various object codes to reflect the construction-delayed opening of the Transit Transfer until November- to defer hiring of the Transit Mobility Supervisor to 2012.- through means to be communicated to Council 'in-camera' at their meeting of March 2nd.

2. Please provide a breakout of cash, 10 tickets and monthly pass revenue. Provide a breakdown of the inputs to the $200,000 revenue increase. What would the increase be if only cash fares were increased and all other fare types remained at current cost levels.

The spreadsheet below details the proposed fare increase by fare media type and user category. On an annualized basis, the proposed fare increase would result in $273,000 in incremental fare revenue ($205,000 in 2011 based on an April 1 implementation date). If a fare increase was only applied to the cash component of ridership, the incremental revenue generated would be $146,000 annualized and $110,000 in 2011.

18

Proposed Fare Increase On All Fare Media - Effective April 1, 2011

Fare media

PurchasesBudget

2011 Category

2010Current

Fare

2011New Fare

% Increase

Fare Elasticity

Purchases (After Fare Increase)

Current Annual

Revenue

Annualized New

Revenue

Annualized Incremental

Revenue

9 Month Incremental

Revenue

2011 New

Revenue with 9

month Fare Increase

Cash 748,580 $2.75 $3.00 9.1% -0.20 734,970 $2,058,596 $2,204,909 $146,313 $109,735 $2,168,331

Tickets: 377,180 Adult $2.30 $2.40 4.3% -0.15 374,720 $867,514 $899,328 $31,814 $23,861 $891,375

330,365 Student $1.85 $1.95 5.4% -0.12 328,222 $611,175 $640,033 $28,858 $21,643 $632,819

125,712 Senior $1.95 $1.95 0.0% -0.12 125,712 $245,138 $245,138 $0 $0 $245,138

$1,723,828 $1,784,500 $60,672 $45,504 $1,769,332

Passes: 13,440 Adult $72.00 $75.00 4.2% -0.10 13,384 $967,659 $1,003,778 $36,119 $27,089 $994,748

10,010 Student $62.00 $65.00 4.8% -0.10 9,962 $620,632 $647,514 $26,882 $20,162 $640,794

1,555 Senior $60.00 $60.00 0.0% -0.10 1,555 $93,283 $93,283 $0 $0 $93,283

5,239 Subsidized $30.00 $30.00 0.0% -0.10 5,239 $157,161 $157,161 $0 $0 $157,161

288 City Staff $36.00 $37.50 4.2% -0.10 287 $10,378 $10,765 $387 $291 $10,669

1,058 Corporate $61.20 $64.00 4.6% -0.10 1,053 $64,762 $67,415 $2,653 $1,990 $66,752

716 Day Passes $7.00 $7.50 7.1% -0.10 711 $5,010 $5,330 $320 $240 $5,250

$1,918,885 $1,985,246 $66,361 $49,771 $1,968,656

$5,701,309 $5,974,656 $273,347 $205,010 $5,906,319

Notes/Assumptions

Purchases for cash, tickets and passes are based on 2011 budget

Board of Education passes included in Student pass salesOverall % Increase 4.8% 3.4% 3.6%

"2011 New Revenue" represents 3 months with current fares plus 9 months with increased fares

U-Pass not included as pricing and contract is negotiated under separate agreement

3. Related Question from Gloria Kovach (submitted February 23rd) Last night a budget question was asked...I think from Leanne regarding a break out of numbers between cash fares and pass/ticket fares. When you present those numbers to us can we see what those costings are minus the passes from the University? If we look at those passes, it may skew the numbers.

The incremental revenue forecast to be generated by Transit in 2011 is $1.1M. This is comprised of $700,000 from the renegotiated U-Pass contract, $200,000 from a forecast increase in ridership and $200,000 from the $0.10 proposed fare increase. In reference to the Councillor’s question, the U-Pass contract is negotiated completely separately from fares paid by the general public and the revenue generated/impact from the U-Pass is not included in fare increase analysis for cash, tickets and other passes – the analysis/impact of a general fare increase is not skewed by the U-Pass program.

19

4. How close to the 57% subsidy rates are the 2011 proposed rates - include in the breakdown identified by Councillor Piper (Q#2 Above)

In 2010, 43.5% of costs were recovered from the farebox while 56.5% was funded through the municipal subsidy (43.0%) and the provincial gas tax (13.5%). The 2011 proposed budget, including the proposed fare increase and service levels, has 45.5% of the cost recovered through revenue while 54.5% is funded through municipal subsidy (41.4%) and provincial gas tax (13.1%). The increase in the revenue recovery (drop in subsidy required) is primarily due to the renegotiation of the U-Pass agreement which generates approximately $700,000 in incremental revenue in 2011. Removal of the proposed fare increase reduces the revenue recovery to 44.6% and increases the municipal support to 55.4%.

5. Identify the budget impact if there is no fare increase.

The impact on the budget in 2011 is $200,000 based on implementing the new fares on April 1. The annualized impact is a reduction in fare revenue of $273,000.

6. Provide the costs for statutory holiday service.

Based on 2009 data, the net cost on average to provide transit service on a statutory holiday was approximately $12,000. Average operating costs per statutory holiday were approximately $15,000 offset by $3,000 in farebox revenue. The net cost to the City of providing service on Canada Day was $20,000 - the additional costs were the result of the longer service window that was provided on that specific holiday.

7. Provide the figures if the rate increases were delayed until the new transit terminal launches (Transit)

The proposed fare increase generates approximately $23,000 each month that it is in effect. A November opening of the new Transit Terminal and accompanying increase in fares would generate $46,000 in incremental revenue in 2011.

8. If we went to 20 minute service, could some of the more lightly travelled routes be scheduled for 30 minute service?

Guelph Transit operates a hub system which means that all of the base fixed routes have to operate on the same service frequency to allow for transfers and interlining in St. George’s Square – this would not be possible as per the Councillor’s inquiry.

9. Review the master parking study with regards to utilizing the requested monies to move the Wilson Parkade ahead - what is the approach and feasibility.

20

Council will recall staff had Tender specification documents prepared for issue to construct a Wilson Street Parking Garage just prior to Council approving the City's long term financial sustainability policies. The approved Debt Policy sets a maximum limit for outstanding debt and the City is currently approaching this limit while recognizing that some room should be left to address risks such as slower than forecast lands sales to repay the HCBP loan or possible obligation for Health Unit debt. As a result, there is no opportunity, without raising the limit, to issue additional City-led debenture to construct a parking facility at this time.

10.Provide definition of what the Master Parking Study entails and what it will provide to the city for $140,000, link it to the downtown growth plan

This project is to develop a plan which sets clear goals and objectives for parking and creates an adopted framework for managing short and long-term needs, along with a sustainable financial plan has long been needed in the Downtown. The recommendations of this plan will support the economic viability of the downtown. Economic development in the Downtown will be the primary goal of the Plan. This issue has been consistently identified through the discussions with staff and the public as we have been developing the Downtown Secondary Plan – and while it is not yet adopted by Council, the issue is one of the top priorities in the draft implementation chapter. The Scope of the study will include but not be limited to:

1. Provide a detailed review of existing parking within the downtown core are, including measuring parking demands on-street and in parking facilities. 2. Estimate parking supply and demand in 5 year time slices from 2011 to 2031. 3. Develop alternatives for each 5 year time frame, including financial analysis. 4. Develop an implementation program for sustainable parking operations in the downtown core. 5. Promote efficient Land use and support the development of the core area as outlined in the Official Plan. 6. Support local business, tourism and service sectors and the community’s economic development. 7. Protect the environment by minimizing impacts of parking facilities on air water, land and other natural resources. 8. Link with other ongoing studies, such as the Downtown Secondary Plan. 9. Undertake a best practices review all parking policies and standard operating procedures and make recommendations. 10. Review and make recommendations on a Parking Management System (inclusive of hardware and software to process parking infraction notices, managing monthly and daily permit program etc). 11. Review and make recommendations regarding paid parking operations e.g. attendant vs. non-attendant (pay and display, pay on foot etc)

11.Could we identify services to review or eliminate in order to find departmental efficiencies?(Separate schedule February 19th – revised February 22nd)

21

12.Can the By-Law officers be full cost recovery? How would we increase fine revenue? What would the goal for increased cost recovery be, what other infractions could be more definitive like parking?

While we can work towards a cost recovery program for some services (i.e. review of our current administrative fees such as sign retrieval, paid duty and continued monitoring our set fines to ensure that they remain consistent with best practices), it may prove unrealistic to expect Bylaw Compliance to achieve full cost recovery because the fine amount required to achieve this would be considered excessive in many cases. Parking compliance is close to being a full-cost recoverable activity as the time expended to issue and process a ticket is low compared to the effort required to deal with other bylaw regulations. Other infractions require significantly more time to investigate, lay charges and process through the court system. The streamline court filing process (Part II of the Provincial Offences Act) used for parking tickets is only applicable to parking tickets, it cannot be used for other Bylaw matters.

Increasing set fines or increasing the number of ticket issued will likely increase administrative costs to both Court Services and the Bylaw Compliance Office. (i.e. the more fines issued by a Bylaw Compliance Officer increases the time spent on office type duties such as processing court documents, processing letters and attending Court).

Below is a comment from Court Services:

The imposition of a fine is not intended to be a recovery mechanism for enforcement costs. Set fines are established by the Regional Senior Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice on application made by a municipality. If approved, such fines become the amount payable when an enforcement officer issues a ticket for an offence.

The set fines currently in effect in Guelph for by-law offences such as noise, fouling highways and licensing are within the range of fines in effect in other municipal jurisdictions for the same or similar offences. Staff regularly monitors these set fine ranges and proceed with set fine applications to the Regional Senior Justice when necessary to maintain Guelph’s set fines within those ranges.

The practice of issuing tickets is intended to be for relatively minor offences and is intended that a person receiving a ticket can satisfy the offence by making an “out of court” payment by paying the set fine. Higher set fines do not necessarily operate as a deterrent to those likely to commit such offences. It is more likely that the higher the set fine, the more likely the fine goes unpaid or results in a trial being requested. This results in the need for greater resources to enforce payment of the fine or to prosecute the matter through the trial process.

The amount of a set fine, or a fine imposed by a court at trial, are measures intended to impose a penalty for an offence and send a message to the offender to prevent repetition of the offence. The average amount of each fine is $114 per charge.

22

13.What is the impact if we change the standards for snow clearing? What would the affect be if the snow removal standard in the downtown was changed to 10 cm from 8 cm?

Budget reduction would be $137,400. The current 8cm standard was introduced just a few years ago after council heard of considerable public dissatisfaction with the 10cm standard that was in place at the time.

14.What is the impact of metering downtown?

15. What is the total $ spent on leaf and spring waste pick up as well as street sweeping.

2011 Cost for Loose Leaf Collection is $277,300

16.There are 2 locations in the budget (7.4 & 7.8) where there is a position for a community responder identified. Provide a breakdown of what the duties for this position are and if we do it in house or contract it out, as well the historical # on amount $ spent on contract vs. hiring full time at $90K

The attached report submitted to council in Feb 2010 outlining the Community Responder Program, and first year results

17. In Forestry section 9.5 in the budget, $85.2K is identified. Provide the detail on if this is staff or contract, the types of service provided and if contracted it cannot be seen in 9.4.

23

2011 2012

The increase of wages to Forestry represents an inaccuracy in reporting the cost of service delivery during the 2010 Budget. The additional wages represent the actual cost of in-house service delivery for 12 months a year, and not as a contracted service.

18.What is the balance in the parking reserve?

The Opening Balance as of January 1, 2011 is $3,561,452.23

19.How much has been spent over the last 5-years on Parking studies?

There have been 3 Studies that have occurred that can be considered parking related; the first was in July of 2004 prepared by LEA Consultants "Downtown Guelph Parking Study" This report reviewed existing inventory and occupancy levels and assessed alternative locations to increase parking supply. The report recommendation was to construct a parking garage on the Baker Street surface lot. COST OF THE STUDY WAS $50,039. A second study was conducted in 2007 by Barbara Leibel Consultants entitled "Best Practice Review of Municipal Downtown Two Hour Free Parking Programs. This report summarized a review of best practices regarding on-street free parking programs and drew conclusions as to options that were put forward. COST OF THE STUDY WAS $7,208. in 2007 Read Jones Chistofferson Consultants were retained to undertake the detailed design etc for the Baker Street Parking Structure. THE COST OF THIS WORK WAS $473,683. In 2009 Walter Fedy Consultants were retained to undertake the Design including the preparation of the specifications for the construction of Wilson Street Parking Garage. THE COST OF THIS WORK WAS $427,770.

In summary, since 2004 there have been expenditures in the amount of $57,247 for parking studies and $901,453 for the design and specification preparation for 2 parking structures. This represents a total expenditure of $958,700.

20. Identify how many fines were issued on the 57 complaints received (U of G)?

During the Shared Rental Housing Pilot (September to December 2010).

• 97 Provincial Offence Notices• 134 warnings • 31 noise letters to property owners• 4 charges (2 still being processed) to property owners for permitting Bylaw issues to continue.

21.Would like more information regarding the late night service $request from U of G

Guelph Transit currently operates a total of 5 late night routes on a cost recovery basis for the University of Guelph Central Student Association (CSA) under a separate contract. The Downtown Shuttle route operates Thursday through Saturday during the school year from the

24

Downtown bar area directly to the University Centre. When this service was initiated 3 vehicles operated on the route. The loads were extremely heavy and there were issues associated with wait times and unruly behaviour by riders. Due to the overcrowding and the serious assault of an operator in 2008, the operation of this service became a serious health and safety issue for Guelph Transit operators.

The service was temporarily suspended until a new service model could be implemented to address the health and safety issues. The service was reinstated in 2009 with a total of 6 vehicles providing service. The cost for this additional service was added to the cost of the base late night service and paid for by the CSA - the cost of this additional service is approximately $25,000 per semester. It should be noted that although the service is funded by the CSA, the Downtown Shuttle can be used by the public without cost. Through the end of 2010, the CSA was able to pay for the additional service through a reserve that had been accumulated when the service was temporarily suspended. With the reserve depleted, the CSA requires a source of funding for the additional 3 buses. The CSA requires $15,000 for the Winter 2011 and $25,000 for the Fall 2011 semester. Potential sources examined included an additional fee paid by students which would have to be approved through the University referendum process as well as soliciting support from external sources including private sector businesses as well as the City. Discussions where held with numerous parties including the Downtown BIA without success. Due to the significant benefits that are provided by this service to all parties in the Community, as a temporary measure, Guelph Transit is proposing to provide a funding bridge of $40,000 for 2011 with the goal of attracting additional parties to provide funding support in the future. There are considerable risks for the City should this request not be accommodated. It is clear Transit will likely have employee Health & Safety issues if asked to provide the service with only 3 buses. Should this occur, then the service would likely be suspended. The consequence of this is a significant number of people (~2,500) will be without a means of transportation from the downtown. Past experience suggests this will create additional burden on our Police Service, staff that clean up the downtown and will result in increased property damage and undesirable behaviour.

22.Section 7.15 and 9.1 in the budget book are missing the cover roll up pages - to be corrected – these cover pages were included to provide link to the operating model in Tab 1 – program notes are included in pages behind these cover pages for each area.

23.Provide a summarized list of why salaries increased 8% and purchased services increased 11% (O&T)

24.Standard Use Policy required for after hours use of City Hall - direction will be give on budget night to address this (Bylaw)

This will be discussed by the Executive Team in 2011.

25

25.Can you provide more information on how the current SRH Pilot is considered successful?

Each month, staff from Bylaw, the University and the Guelph Police meet to discuss issues related to SRH. At this time concerns are passed from one agency to the other. The Bylaw staff members assigned to the SRH pilot are advised of the concerns and are directed to follow up. This includes visiting locations, patrolling neighbourhoods on foot and in a vehicle. Staff record their activities daily, indicating the areas patrolled, proactive interactions with the public and the number of fines proactively issued. Bylaw staff, the University and the Guelph Police then review the outcome of these patrols. Of all the concerns from the University, Bylaw staff and the Police, only one residence had repeat concerns after Bylaw's patrols. Follow up conversations with the residents in the areas have also indicated that the program has been successful in addressing their issues.

Planning, Engineering & Environmental Services

1. Please forward a copy of the last 2 slides of the presentation

2. What types of remediation has taken place at the IMICO property? What more has to happen?

In response to a question from Council on Feb 14th regarding the IMICO site, below is a summary of the next steps in the process required to return the land to service. In addition, below are copies of the last report to Council on this topic as well as the Council resolution which was different than the staff recommendation.Next Steps for IMICO Cleanup and Redevelopment:

1. Undertake a risk assessment on the property (total cost of $200,000). $100,000 is identified in the 2011 Capital budget under the heading site monitoring and remediation. The City has received a federal grant for matching funds ($100,000).

2. Submit Detailed Work Plan, including public consultation approach, to PBEE Committee and Council for consideration and approval

26

3. Issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and identify a “long-list” of developers interested in the cleanup and redevelopment of the site.

4. Evaluate the RFQ submissions and identify a “short-list” of developers.

5. Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to short-listed developers for the cleanup and conceptual redevelopment of the site.

6. Evaluate cleanup and redevelopment proposals submitted and recommend preferred developer to redevelop the site.

7. Enter into agreements with developer, who will complete risk assessment/site cleanup work as appropriate, finalize the redevelopment plan, secure planning approvals, and undertake redevelopment.

3. What if any, are the revenues from fines to offset the Zoning Inspector?

Please see answer to Question 4c on pages 29 & 30. (Sue – Confirm page # is still accurate)

4. Please provide a cost/benefit analysis of the vehicles in Solid Waste’s expansion package.

The Solid Waste Expansion package to replace rental vehicles with City-Owned vehicles is on the list submitted to Council to be removed from the 2011 budget.

5. Question: Please provide source of funding in 2010 for mid-year service adjustments

MRF Supervisor:A mid-year service adjustment was required to ensure continued effective and efficient operational service delivery. The financial implications of this adjustment were managed within the approved 2010 Solid Waste Division budget. Specifically, costs incurred for this position during 2010 ($7,658) were fully offset by compensation gapping savings realized within the Division during 2010.

27

Project Manager:A mid-year service adjustment was required to ensure continued effective and efficient service delivery of capital projects. The financial implications of this adjustment were managed within the approved 2010 Solid Waste Division budget. Specifically, costs incurred by this position during 2010 ($21,646) were fully offset through unspent budgeted consulting funds ($20,000) plus gapping savings.

The cost for both positions during 2011 ($190,700) is funded within the Solid Waste base budget, which is 3.2% or $326,700 less than the approved 2010 budget.

6. Please identify a 5% reduction to the 2011 proposed budget & identify any risks and the impact of these reductions in 2012. (Separate schedule February 19th – revised February 22nd)

7. Please provide more information to support the zero impact to the Tax supported budget for the 2 new positions in the Engineering budget”

Full costs are recovered.

The following is a funding summary:

Construction Inspector/ Utility Coordinator ($ 0)The budgeted cost for the position is ($110,900), which includes all costs, i.e. salary, benefits, furniture, computer and telephone etc. Recoveries are as follows:Utility companies $20,000Site servicing contracts $30,000Development accounts for inspection services $61,000

Junior Development-Environmental Engineer ($ 0)The Remuneration for this position is ($114,800), which includes all costs, i.e. salaries, benefits, furniture, computer, telephone, CAD software etc.Full recoveries are from the Industrial Land Reserve which in this case is funded by land sales in the Hanlon Creek Business Park. This position will be dedicated to the Hanlon Creek Business Park development. This work is currently being undertaken at greater cost by external consultants engaged by Economic Development and funded through the Land Reserve.

28

8. Comment on the possibility of OBC Building becoming a user pay budget.

Staff of PBEE and Finance will work together and will bring forward a report to Committee & Council prior to next year’s budget process.

Human Resources & Legal

1. How much is owing in outstanding parking fines? What is the total $ owing to the City in outstanding fines - requested through the O&T presentation

Current total of POA fines in default is $5.2M.

2. Explore making POA user pay budget

Staff of Court Services and Finance will work together and will bring forward a report to Committee & Council prior to next year’s budget process.

3. Additional FTE information – Court Services

Court Services 1.4 FTE (mid-year improvement) (Councillor Kovach)

How positions were funded in 2010?

Positions took effect in October 2010Cost was approximately $12,200 (October to December)Funding from gapping dollars due to two staff vacancies earlier in year

How positions are being funded in 2011?

Compensation costs attributable to 1.4 FTEs is approximately $136,000

Costs for FTEs to be covered by additional revenue

34% increase in charge volume and 25% increase in trial volume is anticipated to result in additional projected revenue of $450,000

29

4. Shared Rental Housing: Can we move towards “violator pay” rather than the taxpayer by increasing revenues from By-law enforcement, either by:

a) Should we be fining more frequently; orb) by increasing the amount of individual fines?c) How much revenue are we anticipating to

recover through the enhanced enforcement of the by-laws under the Shared Rental Housing package under “New Services”?

a) Should we be fining more frequently?

In general, the approach is different for different by-laws (e.g. property standards, zoning, signs, parking etc.). For some by-laws (e.g. sign by-law, parking) we do recover our costs. For example, the Tidy Lot By-law allows staff to enter onto a property after an initial warning and do the clean-up. Staff have contractors assigned and the work gets done. The contractor’s invoice is transferred to the property owner and we add on a substantial administration fee – this is an example of where the violator is paying not the tax base. However, when it comes to zoning and building code matters, we must keep in mind that not every visit results in a violation. Also, if there is a violation, staff only have the authority to remove it without any warning if there is a serious life or safety issue. Also, people have the right to appeal an Order which in most cases delays compliance. With all this being said – we absolutely support increased legal action against problem properties (for example with Shared Rental Housing) – however we have limited resources and the carrot versus the stick in most cases does work. Our goal with respect to Shared Rental Housing is to have a presence before violations start, thereby reducing the need to issue a charge in the first place. If previous warnings have been issued or if the situation is way beyond warnings – extremely large party – fines are automatically issued. A conflicting pressure is that we are trying to improve our reputation as a City that does work with businesses, not necessarily one that issues fines at the first opportunity.

b) Should we increase the amount of the fines?

See Question 12, Page 22 – Comments from Court Services

c) How much revenue are we anticipating to recover through the enhanced enforcement of the by-laws under the Shared Rental Housing package under “New Services” (page 2.8)?

In total, fine revenue for 2011 resulting from enhanced enforcement under the Shared Rental Housing expansion package, is estimated to be $26,220.00, based on the issuance of 230 additional charges (Emergency Services = 100

30

charges; By-law Compliance & Security Services = 120 charges; Building Services = 10 charges; average amount of each fine is $114). In perspective, the average annual by-law fine revenue received each year (based on a 10-year trend) from all enforcement activity is $61,730.00.

5. Additional FTE information – HR position

Temp Position conversion to Permanent:

Answer: $49,085 Salary$11,000 22% benefit mark up $60,100 TOTAL

Funds exist within the current HR budget.

Library

1. Service review of the book mobile- a) good value to the community; b) cost recovery model; 3) eliminate all together – to be brought to Committee

2. In what department and line item do programming expenditures appear?

The amount budgeted for programming is located in the Children’s Services Budget, 746-0320 in Purchased Services/Professional Consulting fees - $20,000.

In 2010 GPL provided 665 programs to over 24,000 children, teens and adults. Our most popular events were; Summer Reading with 550 participants; Music with Brian with 210 and Juggle the Fun with 190 participants. In the 2012 budget we intend to break up the Programming budget into the Adult, and Children’s Department budgets for each cost centre.

3. What would a 10% increase in overdue fines look like in the revenue stream?

A 10% increase (rounded up to the nearest penny) in overdue fines would increase revenue by $24,559.

2010Fines

10% increase

Adult .25/day .28

31

Children’s .15/day .17Total Revenue

$247,782 $272,559(+$24,777)

4. What types of materials make up the 16% increase in circulation?

5. What makes up the increase in the Internal Charges?

Internal Charges $ % increaseInsurance charge backs $20,800 +42%Commons charges at the West End Recreation Centre

$31,700 +5%

6. How is GPL proposing to recoup the cost of the Marketing/Communications Coordinator position proposed to be hired in the 3rd quarter of 2011?

2011 total cost of the position (salary and benefits) is $72,000.

By 2013 the goal of the marketing/Communications Coordinator is to realize at least $770,000 (10% of the GPL budget) from alternate revenue sources. Currently GPL generates $519,900 from alternate revenue sources (grants, fees and fines).

The specific goal of the Marketing/Communications Coordinator will be to raise an additional $250,000 annually by 2013. This is not an on the job training position, it requires an individual with a proven track record in fundraising and a thorough knowledge of the Guelph community.Opportunities to be explored and tap into include, but are not exclusive to:

provincial and national grants private and corporate foundations partnerships sponsorships establish a GPL bequest and endowment program

32

Material Type ItemsPrint Material adult and children’s Includes:books, magazines, government documents

1,326,198

AudioVisual Material adult and children’s Includes:DVDs, music CDs, books on CD, language CDs, Playaways

507,986

2010 Total Circulation 1,834,184

develop GPL sell through program create a staff direct deposit program.

The position will also have additional revenue generating responsibilities as “ we build steam” for the new Main Library builds.

This is an ambitious goal, but if we don’t start, we will never get there!

Thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions. If I can be of any further service do not hesitate to contact me.Kitty Popekpope@library.guelph.on.ca

Health Unit

1. What is the city cost of mandatory programming for the health unit?

Emergency Services

1. Update 2012 Annualized Cost of Positions sheet (Finance – sent Feb 16th)

2. Find a 5% budget reduction (Separate schedule February 19th – revised February 22nd)

3. Will the closure of the Harvard Road EMS facility result in any costs to the City? The Manager of Realty Services was consulted and indicates there would be “no or minimal” costs related to the closing of this facility.

Economic Development

1. Commercial/industrial revenue generation from Business Park. What is this number?

Based on the tender prices received in the fall of 2010, the cost sharing agreement entered into with Belmont Equities (Phase 1) as well as the cost sharing and land sale agreement entered into with Guelph Land Holdings Inc., (Phase 2), the 2011 HCBP proforma projects the following:

Land Sale Revenueo Phase 1

ROI of 13.42% (High) ROI of 5.16% (Medium) ROI of 1.85 % (Low)

33

o Phase 2 ROI of 52.69% (sale of land to Guelph Land Holdings Inc.)

o Phase 3 ROI of 22.20% (High) ROI of 12.56% (Medium) ROI of 2.54% (Low)

It should be noted that the Phase 3 projections are based on preliminary layout and unit rate cost estimates.

Note: Should Council wish to be provided with information on the actual projected revenues staff will be pleased to do so. However it is recommended that such detail not be provided in public documents as it will identify the project’s breakeven point which may compromise staff’s ability to negotiate land sales.

Mayor/Council

1. Direction given to review why there is no pension attached to the Mayor’s compensation.

The Citizen Review Committee established last year, recommended a comparator group of municipalities to compare the compensation for Elected Officials.

Part of the review included a review of benefits provided to Elected Officials. Based on the review (i.e. the majority of municipalities do not provide OMERS pension to elected officials), the Committee recommended no changes to the current benefit provisions for Elected Officials.

While the Mayor’s position is a full time position, given that there is no guarantee that it is an ongoing permanent position, the Committee felt it would be inconsistent to provide OMERS pension benefits given the philosophy of the OMERS pension system is to provide retirement income based on continuous full time service over many years

2. What were last year’s actual training costs for Council versus budget?

For 2009 and 2010, the actuals are:

Year Budget Actual 2010 (Election Year)Conferences and training $24,000 $6,949.27(Includes fares/meals/travel/ accommodations/conference fees)

Professional development $22,000 $12,764.10Covers costs for on-site professional development

2009

34

Conferences and training $39,000 $22,126.25(Includes fares/meals/travel/ accommodations/conference fees)

Professional development $31,000 $29,446.39Covers costs for on-site professional development

Finance

1. Could the addition of the Tax Collector generate additional revenues? How much?

The tax collector would assist with the management of the assessment base to protect the fairness of the tax assessment system and to optimize the City’s tax revenues. Potential revenue that could be generated is difficult to predict but based on prior history it is feasible that an additional $100,000 could be realized.

This position would assist in reducing the outstanding tax receivables balance. A 10-15% reduction in receivables would generate approximately $ 800,000 - $1,200,000 to the City’s cash flow. Loss in penalty income would be somewhat offset by investment of additional cash flow. The reduction of outstanding taxes receivable would improve the City’s liquidity position, which is an important factor in the City’s credit rating.

2. Provide a ranking of preference for new FTE requests.

All positions have been required for some time. However, recognizing budgetary constraints, the 2011 budget requests recommended a phased hiring, so that the cost could be spread over two years. Following is the prioritized order of hiring and expected month of starting:

1. Senior Analyst, Revenues (Investment, Water/Sewer, other revenues) - March2. Senior Analyst, Capital Asset Management - March3. Tax Collector- April4. Departmental Analyst – May5. Departmental Analyst – May6. Risk Management Specialist - October7. Senior Analyst- Systems (Training & technology)- November

3. Provide Comparative group tax rates for 2011 (proposed or approved)

35

Note: For Kitchener, the 1.94% tax rate increase is net of a 6.43% reduction for storm water management costs which are being transferred to a new storm water fee.

4. Provide timeline for LTFP & Budget policy completion

The budget policy is targeted for presentation to the May CAFES committee, building on feedback from staff and Council from the 2011 budget process

Following is the suggested schedule for LTFP Completion (first version)

1. Strategic Planning process: Feb – June : environmental scan and priority setting helps staff identify critical issues for financial plan and create more accurate forecasts

2. ET Review of 10 Year Capital Forecast and Priority Setting Model: March – July 3. Presentation of first draft of 10 year forecast to Council @ September CAFES – includes

identification of financial imbalances (such as infrastructure gap)4. Develop strategies to address imbalances: August – October 2011 – (includes projected

tax & user fee rate impacts)5. Confirm financial policies- May - September:

a. Budget policy (May) – (include processes for variance reporting, mid-year adjustments and updating LTFP)

b. Capital priority setting policyc. Debt & Reserve – 2009 policies reviewed and confirmedd. 20% capital/80% operating apportionment of tax levy guideline reviewed e. Investment and Purchasing policies also scheduled for reviewf. Water/waste water legislated 6 year financial plan updatedg. Transition to OMBI overhead distribution corporate wide (informs activity

costing and user fee pricing)6. Service Policies: Ongoing throughout 2011/2012 – informed by strategic planning

process and based on departmental workplans – identifies which services, programs and projects are of the highest

7. Formalize standards of performance – key indicators - September8. Completion of first multi-year budget incorporating LTFP (2012 – 2014) Staff

preparation begins in May; Council adoption December 19, 2011.

Councillor Guthrie (submitted February 21)

1. Sand Boxes ; Sand Boxes hadn't been seen on City Streets for decades until 2-3 yrs ago when Ops resurrected them I don't see them in other Cities such as Waterloo, Kitchener and Brampton and on our side of town, less than 1/3 appear used. By deleting this program the Estimated Savings is;........................................................................$ 35,000./yr min

Winter Control Sandboxes have long been a part of the Guelph landscape. They are traditionally placed at locations where we have significant grades, steps or know problem areas. They are placed not only for staff use, but also for residents to use. Having residents use the sand increases the response time to have material applied,

36

increases frequency of having material applied, reduces the department’s cost of providing this service and reduces corporate risk exposure. The cost of this activity is approximately $30,000.

Over the past two years, we have had an increase in the number of boxes placed as part of the City’s ‘treat the ice’ program which was launched in 2009. This program was developed in response to a sidewalk winter control review which had significant public engagement. Staff believe a more timely application of material reduces the municipality’s exposure to risk and also provides for a safer and more traversable sidewalk. The cost of this program is approximately $12,000..

2. Dedicated Pedestrian Signal Light Posts at Traffic-lighted Intersections; Other municipalities such as Kitchener & Cambridge are much more cost efficient in their signal layout at intersections to the point ped. signals are combined  on the reg traffic poles, however in recent yrs, Guelph is not so efficient but appears very "vendor" friendly.Besides creating less visual pollution at intersections, by refraining from this practice the Estimated Savings is........ ....$ 50,000./yr min

It is unclear how the number of traffic signal poles utilized in a signal design is an indicator of efficiency. The design used within Guelph has indeed changed over the years to better position the pedestrian signal display to ensure visibility and to address accessibility issues when a push button is part of the design.

Previously, pole location designs allowed for placement of the pedestrian displays outside of the crosswalk alignment, making it sometimes difficult to be seen. The approach was used to indeed minimize the number of poles used, but was done so at the expense of pedestrian convenience and ease of accessibility. This design approach often meant two pedestrian push buttons on two separate poles. This required pedestrians to often walk unnecessarily out of their way to press the activation button and also added additional winter control clearing requirements (two poles being cleared for button access). This design approach also resulted in the pedestrian displays being obstructed when large vehicles were stopped at the intersection.

As to the estimates, installing new (4) pedestrian poles at one intersection is approximately $8,000 and is generally considered a one-time cost. The approach taken by staff with regard to signal design is very much in keeping with Council’s stated desire to make Guelph a walk-able and accessible community.

3. Traffic Signal Service/Repair Crew & Equ't Recently new equipment and technicians have been engaged doing repairs and maintenance on traffic signals. Typically, traffic signals are low maintenance but their service and repair is considered specialized such that most municipalities Guelph's size and larger, contract this work out on an on demand basis. There is less than full time demand for this  specialized work, and most new installations would be subject to Mfg warranties for at

37

least 12- 24 mos after installation. The Estimated Net Savings in deleting this crew  is ; .............$ 100,000./yr min

A number of years ago, the City made a decision to contract out all new traffic signal installations. That decision is still in effect.

While Manufacturers do warrant equipment, the warranty does not extend to damage caused by vehicular collision, mast arms that are turned because of high winds, preventative maintenance of all equipment, replacement of aged infrastructure, dropped communication lines between the system and individual intersections and inspection as prescribed in the Minimum Maintenance Standards Regulations of the Municipal Act.

Staff are also involved with ongoing programming enhancements of the signal corridors which requires software and hardware changes.

The existing staffing levels are consistent with those of other area municipalities. I would challenge the notion there is less than full-time work for the current staffing complement.

4. Arbour Crew and Equipment: This work, as needed, could be contracted-out even to Guelph Hydro. As there is less than full time demand for this and the crane and platform trucks used are expensive assets.I have noted the crew doing very menial work to keep occupied this winter, such as cutting back shrubbery and trees that project  near or close to sidewalks, work that could easily be delegated to the given property owners, or this work could be documented and performed by Hydro or a contractor. The Estimated Net Savings in deleting crew is $ 100,000./yr min

At present, there is an approximate six month backlog on public requests for service. At present, we are challenged to undertake all of the necessary maintenance required to have a thriving and expanding urban forest. The Urban Forest Management Plan currently being developed will identify and recommend additional work to be undertaken to grow and sustain our forest which will likely exceed our existing capacity to perform the work. It is common during winter months when the ground is frozen to address trimming projects. The grid/block pruning is a long standing industry best practice, as it is particularly important to prune trees within 5-7 years of having been planted for the longevity of the tree . While we could consider asking residents to trim the City’s street trees, not all residents have the necessary skill, knowledge or experience to properly undertake the task without injuring the tree. Further, many residents simply do not have the time or desire to undertake this task.

With regard to Hydro, the City has long worked in conjunction with Hydro’s tree trimming crew, each taking advantage of the other’s expertise and specialized

38

equipment; however, Hydro is strictly focused on protecting their assets and for them to assume the City’s urban forest is not their core service and is out of their scope.

5. Catch Basin Cleaning/Vacuuming Crew & Equipment:While this crew and equipment, I do not believe is engaged in the winter mos, the capital cost of the plant (specialized truck) and its' repairs interest, insurance etc is costly. Once again, this service which was done only on demand with rental equ't at one time, by returning to the contract or rental scenario and "on demand", The Estimated Net savings is $ 60,000./yr min

The cleaning of catch basins is a routine maintenance requirement of the City and has been performed in house for at least 28 years. The task is seasonal and carried out by two employees. These employees are also part of our winter control program. We could investigate outside contracting if so directed by Council.

6. Power/ Mobile Street Cleaning Machines; It could be prudent for the City to own one of these machines, but I believe there are 3 in house. Since the heavy demand is for Street Sand Clean-up due to Winter Control in May and June and for Leaf Clean-Up in Oct/Nov, most municipalities rent the extra machines needed for these periods, there-by saving the high costs associated with owning heavy equipment when not in use. The Estimated Net Savings in selling at least two units is $ 25,000/yr min

The City currently owns two road sweepers; however, there was a time when we did own three units. They are deployed with contractor equipment during the Spring road cleanup activity, just as suggested. Ongoing road sweeping is a key activity in minimizing the amount of sand/debris ending up in our river systems. The municipality needs to retain the ability to respond quickly to any unanticipated mess on our

7. Unnecessary Winter Control Waste; A Major Cost Efficiency  can be realized in this program by paying. All Winter Control Labourers and Operators a Flat 40 hr  week, regardless if they are required to work or not, but, they must be on standby, thereby eliminating the feeling for need to involve them in non-productive or redundant work , in between snow falls.To explain, generally, major snow clean-up and or removal  is completed within 3-5 days of a major snow fall and 2-3 days of a medium or minor snow fall. As it is now, during the down time between snowfalls, fuel is wasted with wear and tear on equipment when it is used to patrol the streets in search of problem areas or for the needless removal  of snow from parking lots such as happens in the West park at the West End Rec Ctr. Patrol work can be more efficiently accomplished by 2-3 supers in their pick-ups. I have often seen salt and de-icer needlessly wasted on streets in anticipation of snowfalls which don't materialize and I have seen many class 4 and 5 roadways peppered with extra salt/sand  when there was already adequate, in situ. I have noted that Kitchener sands residential streets minimally, but they do plow all streets

39

in a timely manor. Another example is; Recently, approx 4-5 days after a minor snowfall, a  tandem plow  went up and down our street "on patrol" and then less than one hr later an Ops pickup with two   employees did the same "patrol"?  By More Cost Efficient Management, per above, especially  of Down Time, the Estimated Savings would be $125,000./yr min

The City has collective bargaining agreements with its unionized staff. The proposal is inconsistent with current agreements and therefore cannot be implemented.

It is important to note, the winter control activities of the City are prescribed by the Minimum Maintenance Standards Regulations of the Municipal Act. However, the comment regarding ‘looking for problems’ has been noted and shared with the supervisors overseeing these operations for the City.

8. Unnecessary Manhole and Catch basin Repairs and Pavement Cuts/ Repairs;I challenge anyone to point to another Municipality that does this program so aggressively  and widespread as Guelph. I documented this in detail in 2010 to Sam Mattina . This is a maintenance program that is far more pro-active than needed and has gone out of control over recent years. The Estimated Savings that could be realized through better controls is $ 50,000/yr min As part of our due diligence program, the City undertakes inspection of our infrastructure each year to determine what needs repair. Deficiencies found are repaired. The City does not have a standard in place that dictates non-repair of infrastructure as is being suggested.

9. Unnecessary Overruns/Waste on Paving Contracts, also previously reported in 2010 to Sam Mattina,The Estimated Savings that could be realized  through more focused inspection and controls on Contractor(s) forces  during asphalt application  would $ 100,000/yr min

The City provides full time inspection on all contracts, including contracts related to asphalt placement. The Contract specifies the asphalt thickness to be applied. The specifications for the annual asphalt program are based on provincial, regional and city standards. Full time inspection by City staff administers the annual paving contract. The City Inspector ensures that the work is performed to the specified standards, including the thickness of asphalt applied. The Contractor is not paid for cost overruns unless authorized by the City Inspector.

10. Unnecessary pick-up trucks, In 15 min of driving across town on any given week day between May 1 and October 1you will encounter at least 1/2 doz  City pick up trucks , none of which are towing trailers or useful equipment. By comparison less than half this  number would be seen in the same time frame when driving in Brampton, Waterloo, or Kitchener ,cities I often drive in. This type of vehicle could be reduced by

40

15 %  without consequence and the Estimated Savings including fuel and repairs would be, $  60,000./yr min

It is unclear what is being suggested here. The pick-up truck is the minimum vehicle of choice for the City’s outside work force because of the nature of what the department does.

11. Unnecessary Bus Pad Scope, I have reported also in 2010, the new bus pads being constructed "using gas tax monies" are excessive in size and by paring the size of these pads down to something more practical and cost efficient, The Estimated Savings is,$ 30,000./yr min

The standards for concrete bus pads were altered from the initial pad size of approximately 1.2m x 1.2m (depending on connectivity to sidewalk) which only covered the front door to 2.1 m x 9m. The new standard addresses the following:

a) Transit policies encourage customers to board from the front and exit at the rear in order to assist in the orderly pick up – drop off of passengers (especially in winter control situations) assisting with schedule performance;

b) Infirm riders require a stable surface to exit the bus from the rear door, the small pads did not accommodate for this;

c) Snow removal of smaller pads made it difficult for the work crews to use mechanized equipment;

d) Subsequently to (c) we were incurring damage and sod repair costs due to the complexity and difficulty to get equipment into the pad area;

e) Complaints from the public that they were they were being dropped off into snow banks, ice, mud and damaging clothes or risk falling from rear door not being cleared.

12. Sale of Redundant Capital Equipment from Items 3), 4), 6) & 10),Estimated Net Realizable Revenue (one time) revenue gain, $ 325,000

Even if these suggestions were implemented, the Corporate Fleet financial model is currently unsustainable. The sale of these units would not result in any realized savings as the proceeds would be required to fund other assets.

In Summary, there may be some initiatives underway by Management re some of the items noted to reduce costs as noted and my figures may be high in some respects and low in others; However, I am confident the total of approx $ 700,000./ yr for items 1)-11), Plus the $ 325,000. which could recovered from the sale of the unneeded equipment is achievable and would greatly contribute to a healthy reduction to the 5.7% proposed increase to the 2011 Budget.

Councillor Laidlaw (submitted February 22nd)

41

1. Could you provide me with more information about the Community Well Being Project, please?

Councillor Piper (February 22 nd Delegation night)

1. Are there Transit budget implications in having a 2 hour transfer layover?

Councillor Kovach (February 22 nd Delegation night)

1. Is there an increase budgeted for ODSP and CPP pension subsidized passes?

In the proposed $0.10 fare increase, the price of the subsidized pass was not changed and remains at $30.

2. Remove impact from increase to revenues from the budget and provide resulting impact.

Councillor Burcher (February 22 nd Delegation night)

1. Please provide additional information and figures with and without the fee increase for Jazz Festival and other groups. (River Run)

Councillor Kovach (February 23 rd )  

1. Would you please advise the total dollar amount that is in this year's budget related to last year's buy outs/terminations/constructive dismissals?

Answer: $533,800 

2. Also, there are many pages in the budget that refer to the reorganization that was done last year and the funding for the person's full position this year.  While I think I have flagged all those pages, would you please provide me with the total increased dollar amount related to these positions that we are being asked to fund?

Councillor Guthrie (To Operations – Feb 16th)

42

1. Why are dog licenses made out of metal. He feels that they should be made out of a soft material as a child could get hurt with the metal.

The company that supplies the license tags stated the following.

1. Tags made from aluminum – the tags are too soft, and by the end of the year they are almost totally illegible, thus they are not the best material for tags as in a year the tag goes through much wear and tear. For instance a dog should be wearing 2 tags, a Rabies tag from the vet and the dog license tag. These 2 tags will rub together providing further opportunities for the information on the tags to wear off.

2. Tags made from plastic – these tags present their own problems too. They are often easily chewed by the pet or damaged through wear and tear, can fracture much more easily thus causing razor sharp edges that would definitely pose a danger to the pet wearing the tag and anyone who may handle the tag. (Up to and including a possible Foreign Body surgery if a pet were to swallow parts of the tag.) Further the information is typically printed ON the tag as opposed to imprinted INTO the tag. Once again allowing the information to rub off and rendering the tag useless.

3. Rough edges on the metal tags – I was assured that the tags do go through a tumbler to remove any burrs/rough spots from the edges and that this is standard operating practice.

4. Tags made of steel – have the longevity required to make the information available to any organization in order to trace the owner should the dog be found. (Often beyond the year that is imprinted on the tag.) To date I am unaware of any incident involving an injury to a person as a result of a tag being made of steel as opposed aluminum or plastic.

2. Lead water inspectors – could private industry do the same work?

Please be advised that the related sampling and compliance work being performed by Water Services Supply and Distribution operators requires that the operator have a provincial license to perform the work. All of the City’s operators have this license and in our experience, very few individuals in the private sector have this license. To gain the license, private individuals would need to be doing work similar to that which our operators perform while operating and maintaining a municipal water system.

If the City were to use private resources to perform this work, these people would need to be trained to the point that we would deem them to be competent. They could then do the work under the direct supervision of one of our licensed operators; this arrangement would be more costly than our current in-house resourcing. Furthermore, there would be an expectation of profit attached to any private sector involvement that would increase program costs (as funded by City ratepayers).

Therefore, the most compliant and cost-effective method is to deliver the program through licensed City operators. Please note these positions

43

relate to the City of Guelph Water User pay Budget that was approved January 31, 2011.

3. Wants to know what the outside heritage wall was estimated at to restore. He heard $500,000, but that it now cost $2million?

Councillor Bell (To Planning, Engineering and Environmental Services – Feb 23rd)

1. Identify and rank the road projects to be delayed to achieve the remaining 5% reduction please.

To have the desired impact on the tax rate, projects have been identified that are funded 100% from City dollars, i.e. not funded through DCs, Federal Gas Tax. List in order to be delayed:

$50,000 from SW0041 Drainage Improvements; $100,000 from RD0282 Delhi; and $100,000 from RD0250 Water

These amounts would be deferred to 2012 capital budget. Implication would be that the main road construction would still proceed in 2011 but the final surface asphalt would be deferred. This means we would not include the surface asphalt in the 2011 tender. This might result in higher prices in 2012 for the deferred work.

44