Management Study Final Report

Corporation of the Town of Midland Managementt St M Study d Final Report October 1, 2012 Town of Midland Management Study Agenda Executive Summar...
Author: Basil Morgan
3 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
Corporation of the Town of Midland

Managementt St M Study d Final Report October 1, 2012

Town of Midland Management Study

Agenda

Executive Summary

1

I.

Study Overview

4

II.

Environmental Scan

11

III.

Service Level Baselines

17

IV IV.

St ffi A Staffing Analysis l i

28

V.

Council Structure

33

VI.

Opportunities for Consideration

36

VII.

Financial Projections

46

VIII.

Concluding Comments

49

Appendix A – Service level matrices Appendix B – Municipal comparative indicators Appendix C – Financial projections

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

1

Town of Midland Management Study

Executive Summary

Over the past decade, the Town of Midland (the Town) has experienced increases in its municipal levy that have averaged 5.5% per year, with taxes increasing by 9% to 10% in certain years. In recent years, however, Council has attempted to maintain taxation increases at an affordable level, with the 2012 budget process resulting in a 1% tax increase. As a means of both controlling future tax increases and streamlining its 2013 budget process, Council has requested that three scenarios be presented for next year’s budget that consider a 2% increase in taxes, no increase in taxes and a 2% decrease in taxes. Achieving these scenarios requires the Town to realize operating cost reductions or incremental revenues in the range of $343,000 to $1,033,000 in 2013. In order to assist the Town with the identification of potential opportunities for cost reductions and incremental revenues, KPMG was retained to undertake a management study that involved an evaluation of the Town’s operations, personnel and financial performance with the view of identifying options for maintaining adequate service levels while allowing for long-term sustainable budgets to be met. The management study process identified the fact that in a number of instances, the Town’s service levels are higher than minimum standards and those adopted by comparator municipalities with similar populations and other characteristics, allowing the Town to reduce services to an acceptable level while reducing costs as well. Additional opportunities were identified through strategies focused on user fees and other non-taxation revenue sources, staff attrition and changes to the Town’s internal processes. Overall, the management study identified a total of $1.75 million in potential savings that could be realized between 2013 and 2016, providing Council with a range of potential options for both the short to mid-term. Initial indications from Council demonstrate support for at least $560,000 of non-personnel savings, which is estimated to provide for a 0.2% increase in the Town’s municipal levy during 2013. As Council proceeds with the 2013 budget process, additional opportunities will be brought forward for consideration, allowing Council to determine which options to pursue. We recognize that the ultimate decision as to type and level of services provided by the Town rests with Council and we trust that our report assists with the decision-making process.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

2

Corporation of the Town of Midland Management Study Ch t I Chapter

Study Overview

Study Overview

Terms of Reference

The terms of reference for our engagement were established in the Town’s request for proposal document dated March 21, 2012. As outlined in the request for proposal document, the objectives of the management study include: •

A description and evaluation of the Town’s operation structure and service levels;



Commentary on the Town’s operating effectiveness and efficiency, using service level benchmarks and comparative best practices;



Options for maintaining adequate service levels while allowing long-term sustainable budget objectives to be met.

The terms of reference for the management study considered the following components: Component

Section of Report

1.

An environmental scan that summarizes the major factors affecting the Town’s cost structure and staffing levels

Chapter II Appendix A

2.

The development of service level baselines for comparison to the Town’s service level standards and practices;

Chapter III Appendix B

4.

An analysis of staffing levels, including staffing levels by department and opportunities for potential changes in light of existing and potential levels of service, compensation levels for comparator communities and comments concerning succession planning;

Chapter IV Additional information provided under separate cover.

6.

An analysis of Council composition and commentary of potential opportunities for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness.

Chapter V

3.

An evaluation of the Town’s current service delivery, including opportunities t iti ffor enhanced h d efficiencies ffi i i and d costt savings; i

Chapter VI

5.

The development of financial forecasts projecting the Town’s anticipated financial performance and the degree of congruence with Council’s budgetary direction.

Chapter VII Appendix C

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

4

Study Overview

Methodology

The development of the management study involved the following major worksteps: 1.

Environmental scan



Historical financial information for the Town, including audited financial statements, internal financial statements, Financial Information Returns and annual budgets were summarized and reviewed to identify factors influencing operating costs, nontaxation revenues and municipal levies levies.



Historical information relating to staffing levels was summarized and reviewed to identify staffing levels by department and the nature of year-over-year staffing changes.



Meetings were held with representatives of the Town’s management group to review the Town’s financial performance and personnel trends.

2.

Service level baseline



An initial working session was held with the Town’s management group to identify: •

Services provided



The rationale for the delivery of the service (mandated, expected, discretionary)



Th service The i d delivery li model d l (i (internal t l resources, volunteers, l t contracted t t d out, t shared h d service) i )



The targeted service level

This information was summarized in the form of service matrices, which have been included in Appendix A to this report. •

Additional information and documentation relating to the Town’s services and service levels, including previous studies, analyses and reports to Council, were reviewed.



Discussions were held with Town management concerning appropriate municipal comparators, based on the following considerations: •

Population



Households



Geography



Distribution of services between upper and lower tiers



Role as a regional centre

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

5

Study Overview

Methodology

2.

Service level baseline (continued)



Based on these considerations, the following communities were selected as municipal comparators Population1

Households2

1. Midland

16,572

7,605

35.37

2. Collingwood

19,241

10,013

33.46

3. Wasaga Beach

17,537

11,987

58.43

4. Port Hope

16,214

6,750

279.03

Community

1 2 3

Area1

4

1 2



Information concerning municipal services, operating costs, staffing levels, management compensation, organizational structures and other aspects of the comparator municipalities was obtained through interviews with the comparator municipalities and analysis of available documentation (including information provided by the municipalities, information obtained through the municipalities’ websites and other information such as Financial Information Returns).



Information concerning service levels for Ontario municipalities was also obtained from other sources, including the Office of the Fire Marshal, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ontario Good Roads Association, Ontario Library Service and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Statistics Canada census profile, 2011 census data. Municipal Financial Information Return Schedule 02, 2010.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

6

Study Overview

Methodology

1

3.

Current service delivery



At the beginning of the management study, a Council survey was conducted to determine Council’s position with respect to taxation levels, municipal services (specifically whether services could be eliminated, reduced, maintained or enhanced), alternative means of delivering services and staffing reductions.



A second working session was held with the Town’s Town s management group to identify potential opportunities for enhancing efficiencies, reducing operating costs and increasing non-taxation revenues, as well as potential risks associated with each of the opportunities.



A presentation of the potential opportunities was made to Council, who were then surveyed to determine the level of support for the identified options and whether they should be considered as part of the Town’s 2013 budget process.



Individual meetings were held with department directors to discuss potential opportunities involving personnel, which were presented to Council during a closed meeting meeting. 1



Members of the public were invited to provide their input as to potential opportunities for Council consideration, both at a public meeting and by way of written submissions.



KPMG identified additional opportunities based on our experience with other Ontario municipalities and similar service delivery reviews.

4.

g levels Staffing



Information concerning the Town’s current and historical staffing levels was summarized and reviewed.



Information concerning staffing levels by department/function were obtained for the comparator municipalities and compared to the Town’s current staffing levels by department.



Salary grids for non-union personnel for the comparator municipalities were obtained and compared to the Town’s salary grid for non-union personnel in order to identify areas of significant difference.



Organizational charts for the comparator municipalities were obtained and compared to the Town’s current organizational structure in order to identify areas of significant difference.



KPMG reviewed the Town’s current organizational structure and lines of reporting based on our experience with other Ontario municipalities and provided our comments concerning potential adjustments that could be considered.



A summary of potential employee retirements (i.e. employees entitled to retire with non-reduced pensions) to December 31, 2016 potential attrition rate for Town employees p y and associated financial impact. p was reviewed to assess the p

As the opportunities were presented in a closed session, Council was not surveyed as to their support for the opportunities.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

7

Study Overview

Methodology

5.

Financial forecasts



An initial meeting was held with the Town’s CAO and Director of Finance to review the Town’s financial performance and identify anticipated changes in non-taxation revenues and operating costs, as well as the Town’s capital forecast.



Initial financial projections were prepared that indicated the potential changes to the municipal levy based on known future changes to the Town’s Town s financial environment but excluding the implementation of potential opportunities identified during the course of the management study.



Additional financial projections were prepared that considered the potential implementation of opportunities identified through the management study and the associated impact on the municipal tax levy and water and wastewater rates.



A high level analysis of the Town’s capital requirements and funding was prepared to determine potential strategies for ongoing capital expenditures and associated financing.

6.

Council composition



Information concerning Council structure and compensation for the comparator communities was obtained and compared to the Town’s Council structure and compensation arrangements in order to identify potential opportunities for Council’s consideration.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

8

Study Overview

Restrictions

This report is based on information and documentation that was made available to KPMG at the date of this report. KPMG has not audited nor otherwise attempted to independently verify the information provided unless otherwise indicated. Should additional information be provided to KPMG after the issuance of this report, KPMG reserves the right (but will be under no obligation) to review this information and adjust its comments accordingly. Pursuant to the terms of our engagement, it is understood and agreed that all decisions in connection with the implementation of advice and recommendations as provided by KPMG during the course of this engagement shall be the responsibility of, and made by, the Town of Midland. KPMG has not and will not perform management functions or make management decisions for the Town of Midland. This report includes or makes reference to future oriented financial information. Readers are cautioned that since these financial projections are based on assumptions regarding future events, actual results will vary from the information presented even if the hypotheses occur, and the variations may be material. Comments in this report are not intended, nor should they be interpreted, to be legal advice or opinion. KPMG has no present or contemplated interest in the Town of Midland nor are we an insider or associate of the Town of Midland or its management team. Our fees for this engagement are not contingent upon our findings or any other event. Accordingly, we believe we are independent of the Town of Midland and are acting objectively.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

9

Corporation of the Town of Midland Management Study Ch t II Chapter

Environmental Scan

Environmental Scan

Overview of the Town’s Financial Performance

The Town’s 2012 budget reflects a total municipal levy of $17.3 million1 which, when combined with $10.6 million in other revenues, will fund a total of $27.9 million in operating costs ($23.1 million), debt servicing costs ($1.7 million) and contributions to reserves ($3.1 million) Since 2003, the Town’s municipal levy has increased by an average of $730,000, or 5.5% per year. In comparison, the average annual increase in upper tier (Simcoe County) taxes paid by Midland ratepayers was 3.8% over the same period, while the Consumer Price Index increased by 1.9% annually since 2002. It is important to note, however, that the annual increases in the Town’s municipal levy have fluctuated significantly from year to year, with several large annual increases experienced during 2004 (8.9%) and 2006 (10.1%). Between 2008 and 2012, the average annual increase in the Town’s municipal levy has been 3.7%, which includes a 1% levy increase in 2012. Total municipal levy – 2003 to 2012 (millions of dollars)2

Annual change in municipal levy – 2003 to 20122 12%

$18 $17.1

$17.3 10.1%

$17 $16.2 $16

10% 8.9%

$15.4 $14 9 $14.9

$15

8%

$14.1

5.8%

6%

$14

6.0% 5.5% 5.0%

$13.3 $13

3.9%

4%

3.2%

$12.1 $12

$11.6 2%

$11

1.0%

$10.7 0%

$10 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 2

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

For the purposes of our report, municipal levy includes payments-in-lieu but excludes supplementary taxes, amounts levied for the Downtown Midland Business Improvement Area, write-offs and rebates. Source – Municipal Financial Information Returns (Schedule 22, Schedule 24), Town of Midland taxation bylaws and internal financial information provided by management.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

11

Environmental Scan

Overview of the Town’s Financial Performance

For the most part, the increase in the Town’s municipal levy since 2008 ($2.33 million) appears to be the result of increased operating costs, which have increased from $20.3 million in 2008 to $22.9 million in 2012, a change of $2.6 million. Comparison of municipal operating costs, other revenues and taxation funding – 2008 to 2012 (in thousands)

2008 (Budget) Operating Costs1

Administration3

$290

$2,149

$131

$275

$28

$247

$323

$38

$285

$38

Fire

$1,826

$35

$1,791

$2,305

$8

$2,297

$506

Police

$4,300

$1,009

$3,291

$5,023

$775

$4,248

$957

Parks and recreation

$3,066

$978

$2,088

$3,518

$1,237

$2,281

$193

$812

$123

$689

$1,022

$168

$854

$165

Public works

$3,386

$112

$3,274

$3,925

$302

$3,623

$349

Water

$1,643

$1,643



$1,800

$1,800





Wastewater

$1,966

$1,966



$1,931

$1,931





Building controls

$347

$347



$340

$135

$205

$205

Parking

$231

$231



$224

$224





$20,282

$6,884

$13,398

$22,850

$6,908

$15,942

$2,544

$1 520 $1,520

$1 309 $1,309

($211)

$14,918

$17,251

$2,333

Municipal levy6

5 6

Taxation Funding

$2,439

5 Oth items Other it

4

Other Revenues2

$2,018

Total

3

Operating Costs1

$412

development4

Library

2

Taxation Funding

Change in Taxation Funding

$2,430

Planning and

1

Other Revenues2

2012 (Budget)

Represents operating costs only (wages, benefits, materials, supplies, contract services) and excludes debt servicing costs or contributions to reserves. Represents non-taxation revenue sources generated by the specific department (e.g. user fees, permit fees, rental revenue). Includes Council, CA), finance, human resources, clerks, health and safety, bylaw enforcement (excluding parking), animal control and financial contributions to the Huronia Airport Huronia Museum and Midland Area Chamber of Commerce Airport, Commerce. Includes Heritage Committee and Committee of Adjustment. Includes debt servicing costs, contributions to reserves for operating and capital purposes, tax write-offs and rebates and revenues not specific to individual departments, including supplementary taxes, interest and penalties and business improvement area levies. For the purposes of our report, municipal levy includes payments-in-lieu levies.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

12

Environmental Scan

Overview of the Town’s Financial Performance

In terms of expenditures by type, personnel-related costs account for almost 70% of the Town’s operating costs, with the majority of these costs represented by full-time wages (45.3% of total operating costs) and employee benefits (13.9% of total operating costs). Since 2008, personnel costs have increased from $13.2 million to a budgeted amount of $15.7 million for 2012. Budgeted operating costs by type (2012)1 (in thousands)

Compensation Council & Boards2

Administration

4 5

Benefits

Total

$64

$2

$323

$1,787

$652

$2,439

$2

$202

$21



$57

$282

$41

$323



$1,416

$119

$119

$398

$2,052

$253

$2,305

$18

$3,202

$250

$136

$946

$4,552

$471

$5,023

Parks and recreation



$1,238

$526

$12

$408

$2,184

$1,334

$3,518

Library



$351

$301

$5

$139

$796

$226

$1,022

Public works



$1,231

$189

$90

$439

$1,949

$1,976

$3,925

Water



$744

$20

$29

$224

$1,017

$783

$1,800

Wastewater



$588

$19

$19

$172

$798

$1,133

$1,931

Building controls



$185



$1

$53

$239

$101

$340

Parking



$45





$14

$59

$165

$224

Total

$274

$10 346 $10,346

$1 509 $1,509

$413

$3 173 $3,173

$15 715 $15,715

$7 135 $7,135

$22 850 $22,850

Percentage of total

1.2%

45.3%

6.6%

1.8%

13.9%

68.8%

31.2%

100.0%

Police

3

Overtime and Other4

$1,144

Fire

2

Part-time Wages3

Total Costs

$254

Planning and development

1

Full-time Wages

Other Costs5

Based on the Town’s Town s 2012 approved operating budget budget. Includes wages and benefits paid to members of Council, Committee of Adjustment and Police Services Board. Includes compensation paid to part-time employees, students and volunteer firefighters. Includes overtime and standby pay. Excludes debt servicing costs and contributions to reserves.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

13

Environmental Scan

Overview of the Town’s Financial Performance

The increase in the Town’s personnel costs reflects a mix of staff additions and regularly salary increases pursuant to the Town’s collective bargaining agreements and non-union salary grids. As noted below, the Town’s full-time staffing complement has increased by six employees between 2008 and 2012, with the largest increase occurring in 2009 when Council approved the following staffing changes: • Added three full-time fire positions (two fire suppression staff and one training officer); • Added five full-time parks and recreation position while at the same time eliminating 15 part-time parks and recreation positions; • Added one full-time administrative staff member for water and wastewater services; and • Filled one full-time library vacancy with a contractor. Full-time and part-time staffing levels by department – 2008 to 20121 Full-time employees Administration

2011

2012

Net Change

17

17

17



3

3

3

3

3



Fire

14

17

17

17

17

+3

o ce Police

36

36

37 3

37 3

37 3

+1

20

252

23

23

23

+3

7

6

6

6

6

-1

Public works

29

29

28

28

28

-1

Water and wastewater

21

22

22

22

22

+1

147

155

153

153

153

+6

83

65

68

67

66

-17

Library

Total

Part-time employees3

3

2010 17

Parks and recreation

2

2009 17

Planning and development

1

2008

Based on personnel information provided by management management. Information for part part-time time employees represents positions only and does not equate to full full-time time equivalents equivalents. The net increase of five full-time parks and recreation staff reflects the transition of 15 part-time positions into seven full-time positions, with the further elimination of two fulltime positions. Includes part-time employees and volunteer firefighters but does not includes students. Amounts shown represent part-time positions and do not equate to full-time equivalents.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

14

Environmental Scan

Constraints and Implications

We understand that Council has expressed its intention to limit future increases in operating costs and the municipal levy, with the view of considering three scenarios as part of the 2013 budget process (2% increase, 0% increase, 2% decrease). The Town’s ability to achieve Council’s direction for future taxation increases will be challenged by the following factors: •

Under existing collective bargaining agreements, the Town is committed to annual wage adjustments for its unionized employees, which vary from 1.5% to 4.0% depending on the agreement. Given the significance of payroll costs to the Town (accounting for almost 70% of operating costs), these wage adjustments will continue to result in pressure on operating costs and the municipal levy.



Certain employees of the Town are currently in the process of certification and negotiation of a first collective bargaining agreement. We understand that during the certification process, the Town is limited in terms of potential changes to staffing levels, compensation levels and other conditions of employment. Accordingly, the Town’s ability to implement strategies intended to control future increases in labour costs may be limited during the certification process, resulting in the deferral of options until the certification period is complete complete.



Currently, the Town’s personnel levels and operating costs are influenced by its choice of service levels and investment in municipal infrastructure. Achieving meaningful reductions in operating costs may necessitate reductions in service levels for certain municipal functions, which may require the cessation of operation of certain assets. While Council has the authority and responsibility to determine service levels for the Town, the community may respond adversely to service level reductions. In addition, cost savings arising from staff reductions may initially be offset by one-time costs (e.g. severance pay, retirement incentives), minimizing the amount of first year savings realized by the Town.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

15

Corporation of the Town of Midland Management Study Ch t III Chapter

Service Level Baseline

Service Level Baselines

How to Read the Analysis

The service level baselines are intended to provide a comparison of service levels, delivery methods, staffing levels and overall operating costs for the Town against the comparator municipalities (Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Port Hope) and other service level benchmarks that may be relevant. For the purposes of our report, the service level baselines are presented on a departmental basis (consistent with the Town’s budget structure), with additional detail provided at the sub-departmental level where considered appropriate. For each service level baseline, the following information is presented: Services Provided

Delivery Model

A high-level listing of the types of services provided.

The method of delivery used by the Town in the provision of the service, which may include own resources, external service providers (both private sector and public sector), shared service arrangements with other organizations or volunteers.

Service Level Standard

Indicators

I f Information ti concerning i minimum i i service i llevels l and/or d/ service levels provided by the comparator municipalities as well as an indication as to whether the Town’s current service levels are consistent with, exceed or fall below the minimum/comparable service levels. Please note that for certain services, service level standards are not available.

A comparison i off key k financial fi i l and d staffing t ffi indicators i di t ffor the Town against the comparative municipalities. Where the Town’s indicators are higher than the comparator municipalities, they could be indicative of (i) a higher level of service or (ii) the potential for efficiencies and other cost reductions. Except where noted, noted the indicators have been developed based on 2010 Municipal Financial Information Returns as this represents the last year for which Financial Information Returns are available for the Town.

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions Overall assessment as to the potential for cost reductions based on the differences between the Town’s service levels, delivery model and indicators and those of the comparative municipalities and other service level standards. © 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

17

Service Level Baselines

Administration Delivery Model

Services Provided • • • • • • • • •

Chief Administrative Officer Treasury Human resources Clerks (including licensing) Health and safety Administrative support Front desk reception Bylaw enforcement and animal control Contributions to airport, museum and chamber of commerce • Crossing guard • Council C il supportt

• The Town relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for administrative services, with the following exceptions: • Animal control – contracted out • Airport, Ai museum – financial fi i l contribution ib i • Employee benefits – combination own staff and consultant

Service Level Standard

Indicators

• Service levels for specific administrative functions are established either by legislation (e.g. Municipal Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act), Town bylaws or collective bargaining agreements. Major aspects of the Town’s administrative functions (e.g. Treasury), however, do not appear to have formally defined service level standards.

• Administrative wages per household are marginally higher than the comparator municipalities (109% of the average). However, administrative costs as a percentage of total municipal operating costs are lower than the average of the comparator municipalities. • Staffing levels for administration are consistent with the comparator municipalities, although the analysis indicates differences at the sub-departmental level, with some functions having higher or lower staffing l levels l than h the h comparator municipalities. i i li i

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions Moderate – The absence of prescribed service level standards for certain administrative functions combined with indications that staffing costs and levels may be higher in some cases that the comparator municipalities may be indicative of the opportunity to reduce operating costs, recognizing the issues that may emerge as the Town attempts to reduce staffing levels (see page 15).

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

18

Service Level Baselines

Planning and Development Delivery Model

Services Provided • Planning (variances, zoning amendments, official plan amendments, site plans) • Committee of Adjustment • Heritage Committee

• Planning services are provided through the Town’s own resources

Service Level Standard

Indicators

• Planning services are provided pursuant to the Municipal Planning Act. The relatively small size of the Town’s planning department (three employees compared d tto an average off 7 for f the th comparator t municipalities) is considered to be indicative of a minimum level of service.

• Staffing levels for the Town’s planning department are significantly lower than the comparator municipalities.

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions Low – The relatively small size of the Town’s planning department, both in terms of staffing levels and operating costs, limits the potential for meaningful cost reductions.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

19

Service Level Baselines

Fire Delivery Model

Services Provided • • • • • •

Fire prevention Fire education Fire suppression Inspections and building plan reviews T i i Training Medical assistance, including ambulance and police assistance

• Fire services are delivered primarily through the Town’s full-time and volunteer firefighters, although mutual aid agreements with other fire services and collaboration with Simcoe County CBRNE Response Team (hazardous materials) exist.

Service Level Standard

Indicators

• Fire prevention and education is mandated under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. • Under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, Council determines the level of service for fire suppression activities. We understand a formal policy for suppression service levels currently exists; however, the fire service has two levels of response – duty calls, g on duty y responding p g to with onlyy the full-time firefighters the call, and general calls, where volunteers and offduty full-time firefighters respond to calls. • Under the current collective bargaining agreement, the Town is required to maintain a minimum of two full-time firefighters on duty at all times. • Medical assistance activities are provided pursuant to County of Simcoe Emergency Response Agreement, with the Town responding as a Level A provider (representing a higher level of service).

• O On a per household h h ld b basis, i th the T Town’s ’ fi fire costs t and d firefighter complement are lower than Collingwood but higher than Wasaga Beach (Port Hope has a volunteer fire service and is excluded from the analysis). • With respect to medical assist calls, Collingwood is identified as a Level B provider, indicating a lower frequency of responses to medical assist calls. However Wasaga Beach is identified as a Level A However, provider, which is consistent with the Town.

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions Moderate – Notwithstanding the consistency of the Town’s operating costs and firefighter complement with the comparative municipalities, the current service level standards of the Town – specifically the use of off-duty off duty full time firefighters to respond to general calls and the classification of the Town as a Level A responder for medical assist – could be adjusted to provide for cost savings, recognizing the associated reduction in service levels and potential for labour relations implications. © 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

20

Service Level Baselines

Police Delivery Model

Services Provided • • • • • • • •

Uniform patrol Criminal investigations and intelligence Marine patrol Bicycle and snowmobile patrol Ci i lb Criminal background k d checks h k Dispatch Court security and prisoner transportation Information technology

• Police services are delivered through own resources, including uniformed officers, special constables, auxiliary officers and civilian personnel. • Specialized p p police services are provided p byy the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

Service Level Standard

Indicators

• The Police Services Act and related regulations set the standard for police services. Under the Act, police services are required to be ‘adequate and effective’ and provide the following core services, either directly or through agreements with other forces: • Crime prevention • Law enforcement, including the capacity to respond to calls for service 24 24-hours hours a day and maintain a communications centre, criminal intelligence capacity, crime analysis, call analysis and public disorder capacity and investigative supports. • Assistance to victims of crime • Public order maintenance, including a public order unit response, including a tactical unit unit, • Emergency response hostage rescue team, major incident commanders, crisis negotiators, police explosive forced entry technicians and explosive disposal technicians

• Policing costs for the Town on a per household basis are 107% of the average of the comparator municipalities, all of which have some form of OPP participation in policing. The number of police officers per 100,000 residents is also higher for the Town than the average of the comparator communities. • Information provided by the OPP indicates that on average policing costs for communities with average, populations in the range of 15,000 to 50,000 residents are more than $100 per household less if the community is policed by the OPP. We note, however, that this differential can be attributed to both economies of scale as well as differences in service levels between OPP and municipal police forces.

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions Moderate Minimum adequacy standards for policing are prescribed by the Police Services Act, which limits the ability to Moderate– achieve significant cost savings through service level reductions. However, the potential does exist for enhanced economies of scale, particularly through collaboration with neighbouring municipalities.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

21

Service Level Baselines

Parks and Recreation Services Provided

Delivery Model

• North Simcoe Sports and Recreation Centre (NSSRC) • Outdoor recreation facilities, including sports fields and playgrounds • Walking trails • Harbour H b • Financial support to community groups • Recreational programming • Tourism

• Parks and recreation services are provided primarily through Town resources (full and part-time employees, including students). In certain instances, services may be contracted out ((e.g. g lighting g g repair) p ) or involve community groups (e.g. special events).

Service Level Standard

Indicators

• For the most part, part parks and recreation services are discretionary in nature and as such, formal service level standards do not exist. • In comparison to the comparator municipalities, the Town maintains more indoor and outdoor recreation space on a per capita basis (131% and 141% of the average of the comparator municipalities, respectively), as well as more open park space (119% of the average of the comparator municipalities).

• The analysis of Financial Information Returns indicates that the Town’s parks and recreation operating costs and staffing levels are higher than the comparator municipalities: • Parks and recreation costs on a per household basis (net of non-taxation revenues) are 123% of the average of the comparator municipalities. • Full-time Full time staffing levels for the Town are 128% of the average of the comparator municipalities. • We attribute the differential in parks and recreation operating costs and staffing levels to differences in service levels, including the number and type of facilities operating by the Town and the maintenance standards adopted by the Town.

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions High – The differential in staffing levels and operating costs indicates the potential for strategies to bring the Town’s parks and recreation costs in line with its comparator communities. Achieving these savings will likely require a reduction in service levels, which will likely be manifested through the appearance and overall condition of the Town’s parks and potentially y operating p g hours as well. recreation facilities and p

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

22

Service Level Baselines

Library Delivery Model

Services Provided • Library collection, including electronic materials and periodicals • Adult, young adult, children and outreach programming • Internet access • Meeting M i rooms • Reference services • Internet site

• Library services are primarily delivered through the Town’s own resources, including full-time, part-time and student employees.

Service Level Standard

Indicators

• The Town’s Town s library currently operates a total of 59 hours per week, which is higher than Wasaga Beach (46 hours) but lower than Collingwood and Port Hope (64 hours and 65 hours, respectively).

• The Town’s Town s operating cost per hour of operation approximates the average of the comparator municipalities (100.7%). • The Town’s staffing for library services (11.49 FTE) is lower than Collingwood (19.09 FTE) and Wasaga Beach (15.03 FTE), but higher than Port Hope (8.97)

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions Low – Based on the total weekly operating hours, service levels for the Town’s library do not appear to be excessive when compared to the comparator municipalities. Similarly, operating costs per hour and FTE staffing are comparable to or lower than the indicators for the comparator municipalities.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

23

Service Level Baselines

Roads Services Provided

Delivery Model

• Winter roads maintenance (snowplowing, salting, sanding, snow removal) • Summer roads maintenance (spring sand cleanup, patching, boulevard maintenance, sweeping, loosetop maintenance) • Sidewalk and curb maintenance (winter and summer) • Leaf removal • Maintenance of traffic signs and signals • Storm sewer and catchbasin maintenance

• The Town relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for roads maintenance, with some external contractors utilized for line painting, asphalt patching, ditch and culvert maintenance and sidewalk repairs.

S i L Service Levell St Standard d d

Fi Financial i lP Performance f and d St Staffing ffi

• The primary service level standard for roads maintenance (summer and winter) is Ontario Regulation 239/02 – Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways. Under the regulation, roads are classified into one of six classes depending on speed limit and traffic volumes volumes, with different maintenance standards established for each class of road. Roads with lower speed limits and/or lower traffic volumes have lower maintenance standards. • The current service levels provided by the Town for winter and summer maintenance exceed the minimum requirements under Ontario Regulation 239/02, particularly p yg given the nature of the Town’s road network which is not characterized as high speed or high volume.

• The Town’s operating cost per lane kilometre of paved road are 124% of the average of the municipal comparators, although winter road costs were 86% of the average of the comparator municipalities. • Public works staffing (all functions, including water and wastewater) are 137% of the average for the comparator municipalities.

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions High – The Town’s current service levels significantly exceed the minimum service level standard, potentially supporting reductions in service levels and associated costs costs, recognizing the potential for adverse response by residents residents.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

24

Service Level Baselines

Water and Wastewater Services Provided • • • • • • •

Delivery Model

Water treatment and distribution Wastewater collection and treatment Infrastructure maintenance Biosolids management Service locates Fire hydrant maintenance Special programs (water efficiency stewardship, lead sampling, private well abandonment)

• The Town relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for water and wastewater services, with limited use of outside contractors for specific functions (biosolids haulage, sampling and testing).

S i L Service Levell St Standard d d

Fi Financial i lP Performance f and d St Staffing ffi

• Water and wastewater services are delivered pursuant to a number of Provincial acts, with limited discretion as to service levels or outcomes.

• The Town’s water treatment and distribution costs per megalitre of treated water, are 91% of the average of the comparator municipalities. • The Town’s wastewater collection and treatment costs per megalitre of treated water, are 99% of the average of the comparator municipalities. • Public works staffing (all functions, including water and wastewater) are 137% of the average for the comparator municipalities.

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions Moderate – The mandated nature of water and wastewater services provides the Town with minimal opportunity to change service levels as a means of reducing costs. Similarly, the Town’s lower than average water and wastewater costs could be indicative of limited opportunities to realize additional cost reductions. However, the higher than average number of public works employees may provide an opportunity to reduce staffing levels.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

25

Service Level Baselines

Other Public Works Services Provided • • • • • • •

Delivery Model • The Town relies primarily on its own resources (mix of full-time and part-time personnel) for other public works and building controls.

Vehicle repairs and maintenance Public works depot Information technology Financial analysis and data entry Bus shelter maintenance Streetlights Building permits

S i L Service Levell St Standard d d

Fi Financial i lP Performance f and d St Staffing ffi

• We understand that formal service level standards have not been established for other public works functions, with these services provided on an ‘as needed’ basis • Service level standards for building permits are mandated by the Building Code Act, which stipulates minimum performance standards for building permits.

• Not applicable

Overall Potential for Cost Reductions Low – The relatively small size of these functions (in terms of staffing and budget) reduce the potential for significant cost red ction opport reduction opportunities. nities In addition addition, the reg regulated lated nat nature re of b building ilding control acti activities ities likel likely precl precludes des a significant change to the Town’s internal processes and/or service levels.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

26

Corporation of the Town of Midland Management Study Ch t IV Chapter

Staffing Analysis

Staffing Analysis

Overview of Staffing Changes

Currently, the Town employs a total of 153 individuals on a full-time basis, with the number of full-time employees remaining constant since 2010. Over the same period (2010 to 2012), the number of part-time employee positions has decreased by two. Full-time and part-time staffing levels by department – 2008 to 20121 Full-time employees Administration

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Net Change

17

17

17

17

17



3

3

3

3

3



Fire

14

17

17

17

17

+3

Police

36

36

37

37

37

+1

Parks and recreatio8n

20

25

23

23

23

+3

7

6

6

6

6

-1

Public works

29

29

28

28

28

-1

Water and wastewater

21

22

22

22

22

+1

147

155

153

153

153

+6

83

65

68

67

66

-17

Planning and development

Library

Total

Part-time employees3

As noted above, the Town experienced a significant increase in full-time staffing levels from 2008 to 2009, with a corresponding increase in part-time employees. The majority of this change was due to the transition of seven parks and recreation positions from part-time to full-time, resulting in the overall elimination of 15 part-time parks and recreation positions. Since 2008, a number of other changes to the Town’s full-time staffing complement have occurred, which we have summarized on the following page.

1

Based on personnel information provided by management. Information for part-time employees represents positions only and does not equate to full-time equivalents.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

28

Staffing Analysis

Overview of Staffing Changes Changes to full-time staffing complement

1

Dept

2009

2010

2011

2012

Elimination of traffic bylaw enforcement officer

Admin

-1

Finance department intern

Admin

+1

Additional fire suppression staff

Fire

+2

Addition of training officer

Fire

+1

Replacement of library cleaning staff with contractor

Library

-1

Conversion of part-time staff to full-time

Parks NSSRC

+7

Elimination of team leader

NSSRC

-1

Parks

-1

Transfer of Boys and Girls Club staff Reduction in facility lead hands Retired public works lead hand not replaced Addition of administrative assistant

NSSRC

-2

PW

-1

Water

Total

Change in part-time staff

All

+1 +8

-3





-18

+3

-2

-1

Since 2010 2010, the Town has not increased its full-time full time or part-time part time staffing complement complement. Rather Rather, we were advised that Town management has effectively implemented a hiring freeze, with no new net positions created and the only hiring undertaken in connection with staff vacancies. While this has maintained full-time staffing at 2010 levels, the Town does not appear to have experienced staff decreases as a result of attrition, which may not have been possible given the nature of the individuals that have retired or otherwise left the Town’s employment during this period.

1

Based on personnel information provided by management.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

29

Staffing Analysis

Overview of Staffing Changes

While reductions in full-time staffing through attrition does not appear to have taken place since 2010, the potential does exist for future staffing reductions through attrition over the short to mid-term future. Specifically, we note that 26 full-time employees will be eligible for unreduced pensions by 2016, representing 22% of all full-time employees. Cumulative number of employees reaching unreduced pension1 30 25 20 15 10 5 2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

While certain of these positions will need to be replaced, the retirement profile provides the Town with the opportunity to reduce staffing levels through attrition, thereby avoiding the resultant issues associated with staff layoffs and retirement incentives. During the course of the management study study, we have identified positions that could potentially be eliminated through attrition. attrition However, we believe this analysis includes personal matters about an identifiable individual and/or may impact on the Town’s labour relations and/or employee negotiations and as such, will be presented under separate cover to a closed session of Council.

1

Based on personnel information provided by management.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

30

Staffing Analysis

Compensation Levels

The average compensation for full-time Town employees is approximately $58,000 for non-management employees and $82,000 for management employees. Average compensation will vary by department, with compensation costs influenced by the requirements of the specific position and the relative size of the departments. Average compensation for full-time employees by department (2012)1 Average

Water and wastewater

Public works

Planning

Parks and recreation Non-Management Management

Library

Fire

Administration $-

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

During the course of the management study, we have undertaken a comparison of compensation levels for the Town’s non-union employees to an expanded group of comparator municipalities and based on this analysis, have identified potential compensation adjustments that could be considered by the Town. However, we believe this analysis includes personal matters about an identifiable individual and/or may impact on the Town’s labour relations and/or employee negotiations and as such, will be provided under separate cover to a closed session of Council. 1

KPMG analysis based on 2012 budgeted expenditures and personnel information provided by management.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

31

Corporation of the Town of Midland Management Study Ch t V Chapter

Council Structure

Council Structure

Comparisons of Council Compositions and Costs

The Town currently has a nine member Council comprised of the mayor, deputy mayor (both elected at large) and seven councillors, with three councillors representing Ward 1, three councillors representing Ward 2 and one councillor representing Ward 3 and 4. In relation to the comparator municipalities, the Town’s Council provides a higher level of representation that any of the comparator municipalities, with the ratio of councillors to residents and councillors to households higher than the comparators. We note that the use of wards vs. at large representation is evenly divided among the group. Council composition for selected municipalities1 Midland

Collingwood

Wasaga Beach

Port Hope

Council size

9

9

7

7

Ward system

Yes

No

No

Yes

Number of wards

4

n.a.

n.a.

2

At-large councillors

2

9

7

1

Councillors per ward (excluding at-large councillors)

1.75

n.a.

n.a.

3

Councillors per thousand residents

0.54

0.48

0.40

0.43

Councillors per thousand households

1 18 1.18

0 90 0.90

0 58 0.58

1 03 1.03

Councillors per square kilometre

0.25

0.27

0.12

0.03

Residents per ward

4,143

n.a.

n.a.

8,107

Households per ward

1,901

n.a.

n.a.

3,375

8.8

n.a.

n.a.

139.5

Square kilometres per ward

In the event that the Town reduced its Council size from nine to seven members, we note that the ratio of councillors to residents and households would be consistent with the comparator municipalities, indicating a comparable level of political representation with a smaller Council size. • Councillors per thousand residents (seven councillors) – 0.42 • Councillors per thousand households (seven councillors) – 0.92

1

KPMG analysis based on information obtained from the selected municipalities’ websites.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

33

Council Structure

Comparisons of Council Compositions and Costs

The Town has established a remuneration mechanism for councillors that includes a combination of monetary compensation (i.e. salary) and benefits coverage. The use of a combination of salaries and benefits is used by other comparable municipalities as well and as such, appears to represent best/common practice for Council remuneration. While Council remuneration will fluctuate based on benefits coverage, attendance and other factors, we note that compensation levels for the Town’s mayor is consistent with the comparator municipalities, while compensation for the deputy mayor and councillors, is higher than the average of the comparator municipalities. Council remuneration for selected municipalities1 $50,000 $45 000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10 000 $10,000 $5,000 $Mayor Midland

1

Colling ood Collingwood

Deputy mayor Wasaga Beach

Councillor Port Hope

Comparator A Average erage

KPMG analysis based on information provided by the comparator municipalities and/or obtained from the selected municipalities’ websites.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

34

Corporation of the Town of Midland Management Study Ch t VI Chapter

Opportunities for Consideration

Opportunities for Consideration

Presenting the Results

Overall, the management study identified 38 potential opportunities for cost reductions that are provided to the Town for consideration, with an estimated annual financial impact of $793,000 (recognizing that financial impacts have not been estimated for all opportunities and that not all opportunities can be implemented in 2013). The following pages provide information concerning the opportunities including: •

A description of the potential opportunity



An indication as to the potential financial impact associated with the opportunity, based on the 2012 budget and other information



Potential risks

The decision to implement any of the opportunities identified in the management study will be taken during the 2013 budget process and as such, no formal decision has been made as to the implementation of the identified options. pp p presented in this report, p , additional options p were identified with respect p to the number,, compensation p In addition to the opportunities and utilization of Town personnel, which are provided under separate cover. Overall, a total of 20 personnel-related opportunities were identified, with estimated associated cost savings of $956,000 (to be realized over a five year period). Suggestions for cost reductions and increased non-taxation revenue (17) were provided by Midland residents and members of Council and these have been listed on page 44. In certain instances, these suggestions are consistent with the options identified during the course of the management study.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

36

Opportunities for Consideration

Municipal Council

Option

Description

Financial Impact1

Risks Labour Relations

Other

A.1

Reduce Council size by two members

$51,000

No

Yes2

A2 A.2

R d Reduce C Council il remuneration i to average off peer communities ii

$33 000 $33,000

N No

Yes3 Y

A.3

Reduce number of council committees (currently 35)

n.a.

No

No

A.4

Realign Council remuneration to eliminate full-time benefits

n.a.

No

Yes3

1 Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, expenditures discussions with management and other assumptions. assumptions Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. process Does not included implementation or other one-time costs. 2 Potential that residents may view reduction in Council size as adversely impacting political representation. 3 Potential that reduced or realigned Council remuneration may limit candidates for elected office.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

37

Opportunities for Consideration

Parks and Recreation

Option

Description

Financial Impact1

Risks Labour Relations

Other

B.1

Increase non-taxation funding for the NSSRC to more equitably share operating and capital costs based on usage and residency through: • Non-resident user fee; or • General increase in user fees; or • Contribution from other municipalities. Consideration could be given to a gradual phase-in of increases (assumed 5% increase per year).

$ $37,000

No

Yes2

B.2

Fully fund harbour operations through user fees

$21,000

No

Yes2

B.3

Increase cost recovery through user fees for ice rentals during summer months (July and August)

tbd

No

Yes2

B.4

Decrease service maintenance standard for parks and outdoor facilities (15% assumed savings)

$174,000

Yes

No

Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one one-time time costs. costs 2 Potential concerns over affordability, reduced demand in response to fee increases and inter-municipal relations. 1

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

38

Opportunities for Consideration

Public Works

Option

Description

Financial Impact1

Risks Labour Relations

Other

C.1

Develop a tiered service standard for winter roads maintenance (15% assumed savings)

$147,000

Yes

Yes2

C.2

Develop a tiered service standard for summer roads maintenance (15% assumed savings)

$108,000

Yes

Yes2

C.3

Implement GPS route guidance and spreader control system for winter roads maintenance

tbd

No

No

C.4

Discontinue all leaf removal activities after upload of service to Simcoe County

$137,000

No

Yes2

C.5

Consider contracting out spring sand cleanup

tbd

Yes

Yes2

C.6

Consider contracting out loose-top maintenance

tbd

Yes

Yes2

C.7

Integrate materials maintenance management and financial reporting systems y to eliminate duplicate p data entry y and improve p financial reporting and budgeting monitoring

n.a.

No

No

C.8

Consider tendering current contract for sludge haulage and disposal, including potential for shared service arrangement with another municipality.

tbd

No

No

C.9

Consider shared public works functions with neighbouring municipalities including winter roads patrol, municipalities, patrol water and wastewater maintenance activities and public works planning.

tbd

No

No

Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one-time costs. 2 Potential concerns over public safety and other risks arising from reduced level of service. 1

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

39

Opportunities for Consideration

Fire Services

Option

Description

Financial Impact1

Risks Labour Relations

Other

$10,000

No

Yes3

D.1

Reduce number of free false alarms from three to one

D2 D.2

I Increase fee f for f false f l fire fi alarms l ((non-residential id i l properties i only) l )

tbd bd

N No

Yes3 Y

D.3

Consider sharing of fire service functions (training, inspections) with neighbouring communities

tbd

tbd

tbd

D.4

Increase utilization of fire services personnel to provide training to municipal staff

$15,000

No

No

Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not include implementation or other one one-time time costs. costs Potential concern surrounding impact on quality of response. 3 Potential risk that fires will be unreported due to concerns over cost. 1 2

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

40

Opportunities for Consideration

Police Services

Option

Description

Financial Impact1

Risks Labour Relations

Other

E.1

Integrate municipal and police fleets

tbd

No

No

E2 E.2

I Investigate i shared h d policing li i ffunctions i with i h other h municipal i i l services i

tbd bd

N No

N No

1

Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one-time one time costs.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

41

Opportunities for Consideration

Corporate Services

Option

Description

Financial Impact1

Risks Labour Relations

Other

G.1

Reduce frequency of water billings to bi-monthly

n.a.

No

No

G2 G.2

C Consolidate lid water and d utility ili billi billings

n.a.

N No

N No

G.3

Consider use of external service provider for management of short-term disability benefits

tbd

No

No

G.4

Investigate potential shared corporate services with other municipalities, including payroll, information technology, purchasing, clerks

tbd

Yes

No

G.5

Actively register properties that are eligible for tax sales

tbd

No

No

G.6

Undertake group purchasing arrangements with other public sector organizations for professional services (audit, legal, human resources, planning, consulting), materials and supplies (office supplies, utilities, telecommunications), capital (vehicles, information technology)

tbd

No

No

G.7

Ensure timely completion of audited financial statements and financial statement returns, avoiding holdback of OMPF funding

n.a.

No

No

G.8

Eliminate manual finance processes and use of Excel spreadsheets for information maintenance and financial analysis.

tbd

No

No

Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one-time costs.

1

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

42

Opportunities for Consideration

Other Services

Option

Description

Financial Impact1

Risks Labour Relations

Other

TBD

No

No

I.1

Acquire alternative fuel vehicles for municipal fleet, including transit

I.2

Increase metered parking rates from $0.75 $ to $ $1.00

$ $37,000

No

No

I.3

Implement regular increases in fines and parking pass fees

$5,000

No

No

I.4

Establish pay and display parking systems for municipal lots

tbd

No

No

I.5

Establish a regional land use planning and building control function with other municipalities

tbd

Yes

No

I.6

Transition the Huronia Airport to a full cost recovery structure (assume three year phase-in)

$18,000

No

Yes2

I.7

Reduce free parking period (currently three hours)

tbd

No

Yes3

Preliminary estimate based on 2012 budgeted expenditures, discussions with management and other assumptions. Subject to revision as part of the 2013 budget process. Does not included implementation or other one-time costs. 2 Potential risk associated with inter-municipal relations and financial viability of airport operations 1

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

43

Opportunities for Consideration

Opportunities Identified by Community Members

Option

Description

J.1

Establish economic development capacity, including potential for regional economic development function in conjunction with other p municipalities

J.2

Advance concept of joint urban node through increased collaboration with neighbouring communities

J.3

Introduce shared services with neighbouring communities, including shared chief building officer, shared fire chief

J.4

Reducing staffing costs through hiring freeze, attrition and re-allocation of resources to meet the needs of municipal operations

J5 J.5

Investigate reduced maintenance standards for public works and parks and recreation

J.6

Undertake financial audits of major capital projects to identify potential improvements to project management processes

J.7

Assess current equipment needs based on the Town’s operations and consider changes to future procurement (e.g. acquire different type of vehicle or rent in the short term)

J.8

Review current rental rate structure based on value of land occupied byy third parties so as to ensure an appropriate return on the Town’s assets

J.9

Introduce zero based budgeting and require cost savings to be contributed to reserves rather than redirected to other projects.

J.10

Change the deployment model for fire services and increase reliance on volunteer firefighters.

J.11

Investigate shared fire services with neighbouring communities.

J 12 J.12

Establish a parks master plan and sell excess parkland and/or apply levies in lieu of parklands parklands.

J.13

Increase user fees for the NSSRC, offset by directed subsidies for low income residents.

J.14

Reassess the requirement for a new public works depot and consider integrating public works with other municipal departments or other municipalities.

J.15

Reduce library operating costs by utilizing an increased number of volunteers.

J.16

Renegotiate contributions from other municipalities for library services.

J.17

Investigate shared policing services with neighbouring communities in order to achieve efficiencies and economies of scale.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

44

Corporation of the Town of Midland Management Study Ch t VII Chapter

Financial Projections j

Financial Projections

Council Direction With Respect to Cost Reductions

Following the completion of the 2012 budget process, Council expressed its intention to consider three scenarios as part of the 2013 budget process: •

2% taxation increase



0% taxation increase



2% taxation decrease

Based on these targets for 2013 taxation increases, and considering potential adjustments to the 2012 budget for inflation, changes in non-taxation revenues and other items, we have estimated that the amount of cost savings and/or incremental non-taxation revenue that are required for 2013 is in the range of $343,000 to $1,033,000. This level of cost savings/incremental non-taxation revenue assumes that contributions to reserves and debt servicing costs are consistent with the prior year (i.e. frozen) and that no enhancements in Town services are introduced. Summary of required cost reductions and incremental non-taxation revenue required to achieve Council’s budgetary direction (in thousands)

2% Taxation Increase

Total municipal levy (2012)

0% Taxation Increase

2% Taxation Decrease

$17,251

$17,251

$17,251

$345



(($345))

Targeted municipal levy

$17,596

$17,251

$16,906

Projected municipal levy before cost reduction strategies

$17,939

$17,939

$17,939

Required level of cost reductions and non-taxation revenue

$343

$688

$1,033

As a percentage of projected operating costs

1.2%

2.4%

3.6%

g change g in municipal p levy y Targeted

Included as Appendix C, Schedule C.1 is a financial projection of the Town’s financial results and taxation levels that considers inflationary adjustments (including salary increases pursuant to collective bargaining agreements) but excludes increases in reserve contributions (capital funding), debt servicing costs or strategies for cost reductions or incremental non-taxation revenues. As noted in the projection, the Town’s overall municipal levy is projected to increase from $17.251 million in 2012 to $20.515 million in 2017, an average increase of 3.6% per year. Under this scenario, the average residential tax per household (lower tier only) is projected to increase from $1,913.53 in 2012 to $2,275.58 in 2017.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

46

Financial Projections

Congruence with Council Direction

As part of the management study, Council was requested to provide their initial thoughts on certain of the opportunities for cost reductions or increased non-taxation revenue. As noted below, those opportunities with initial support from Council (recognizing that all opportunities will be subject to formal approval as part of the Town’s budget process) are estimated to reduce the municipal levy by $560,000 during 2013, with an additional $140,000 in levy reduction expected in 2014. Preliminary modeling indicates that this level of levy reduction, after consideration of inflation and other factors, would result in a net levy increase of 0.5% for 2013 (refer to Appendix C, C Schedule C C.2) 2) Summary of initial Council survey results Opportunity

Assumed Implementation Date

Reduce Council size by two members

Dec 1, 1 2014

Freeze Council remuneration

Jan 1, 2013

Increase non-taxation revenue for NSSRC

Jul 1, 2013

Full fund harbour operations through user fees

Jan 1, 2013

Increase cost recovery through user fees for ice rentals during summer months

Jun 1, 2013

Decrease service maintenance standards for parks and outdoor facilities

Jan 1 1, 2013

Develop a tiered service maintenance standard for winter roads maintenance

Nov 1, 2013

Develop a tiered service maintenance standard for summer roads maintenance

Jan 1, 2013

Discontinue leaf removal activities after upload of service to Simcoe County

Jan 1, 2013

Reduce number of free false alarms from three to one

Apr 1, 2013

Increase fee for false alarms from non non-residential residential properties

Apr 1 1, 2013

Total

Estimated Financial Impact 2013

Estimated Financial Impact 2014

Council Support for Opportunity



$51,000

56%

$8,000



67%

$19,000

$37,000

78%

$21,000

$21,000

67%

$5,000

$5,000

100%

$174,000

$174,000

56%

$74,000

$147,000

67%

$108,000

$108,000

67%

$137,000

$137,000

67%

$7,000

$10,000

100%

$7,000 $ ,

$10,000 $ ,

100%

$560,000

$700,000

In addition, we have estimated that a total of $323,000 of personnel-related opportunities could potentially be realized by the Town during 2013, potentially increasing the 2013 level of cost reductions and incremental non-taxation revenue to $883,000. This level of municipal levy reduction would result in a 1.7% decrease in the Town’s municipal levy for 2013, which approximates the upper end of the tax scenarios outlined by Council.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

47

Corporation of the Town of Midland Management Study Ch t VIII Chapter

Concluding Comments

Town of Midland Management Study

Concluding Comments

In today’s municipal environment, councillors are faced with the competing objectives of attempting to minimize taxation increases while ensuring sufficient funds are available to maintain support existing operations and finance residents’ demands for enhanced services. The experience of the Town of Midland, which combines Council’s intention to reduce costs and a meaningful level of community interest, is in no means unique. The overall intention of the management study was to identify potential opportunities for cost reductions and incremental non-taxation revenues that would ensure the long-term sustainability of the Town, provide an acceptable level of service to residents and reduce taxation increases after a period of significant increases. We trust that the opportunities identified in the report are of use to Council and staff during the 2013 budget process as well as budget processes for subsequent years. We believe, however, that if Council is to be truly successful in managing future taxation increases, certain key principles need to be adhered to: •

While efficiencies exist, meaningful cost savings will often require service level reductions. In the case of Midland, the analysis indicates that service levels are often higher than comparator communities, providing the opportunity to reduce costs while delivering a level of services that is consistent with other municipalities municipalities.



The implementation of the management study opportunities is a multi-year process that will require consistency on the part of Council. This requires Council to maintain and defend its decision to implement opportunities that may impact on service levels.



By virtue of its proximity to neighbouring communities, a number of significant opportunities are available for shared service arrangements with other municipalities. In developing these opportunities, we suggest that the Town start small and ensure that sharing is a two-way street, with the Town both providing services to and purchasing services from other communities.



At some point, Council will be faced with the prospect of reducing services to a point that is less than acceptable. Where core services are to be maintained, Council should ensure that sufficient funding is provided to support the operations at the required level.

KPMG would like to express our appreciation to members of Council, management and staff of the Town of Midland, community members and other individuals who assisted with and participated in the management study.

© 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

49

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. © 2012 KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name name, logo and “cutting cutting through complexity” complexity are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

APPENDIX A 

Clerks Department  

 

Town of Midland - Management Study Clerks Department - Municipal Service Matrix Service

Model

The service and brief description

How is it provided? Own resources? Contracted out Shared service, etc.

live person answers call commissioning

receptionist

staff provide at the counter on as requested basis marriage licenses receptionist marriage ceremonies designated staff crossing guard

hired staff person to do

Three hour free parking in municipal lots Staff attendance on various committees

traffic officer to monitor and ticket as required

death registration lottery licences preparation of agendas, minutes, reports and by-laws for Council (Gen comm, Special Council, Closed meetings etc)

own resources own resources own resources

handles town wide insurance and claims

own resources with assistance of adjuster

Basis of Delivery Service Standard Required Expected Discretionary Mandated by Typically No basis for What is the level of service you legislation or delivered by delivery other aim to provide? necessary for similar sized than public safety municipalities community and expected choice by residents x x

x x x x x

own resources x x x

x

prompt and friendly pick up and transfer of calls provide people with the service of commissioning documents when required provide marriage licence to provide civil ceremonies to those that request same assistance to students prior to school start, lunch and after free (up to 3 hours) parking in downtown to assist business owners Council looks to have staff participate for input/continuity assist people when coming into assist people to obtain lottery provide according to procedural by-law and municipal act

Service Standard Exceptions

Performance Outcomes

How often do you miss on your service standards? Please provide any statistics you may have

Any internal statistics you have tracking your performance? Please provide statistics relating to the service.

meet standard

approx 3,000 calls a month

meet standard - unless no one is available due to other commitments meet standard - may take longer meet standard based on availability meet standard

approx 5 a week

meet standard

approx 120 per year approx 30 per year 10 - 20 children per day 534 parking spaces

meet standard provided staff are approx 17 staff (not referencing available Council/General Committee/P & D meetings) meet standard approx 400 per year provided they meet the eligibility approx meet standard minimum of 22 meetings per year

x

x

provide people with a prompt response - and to ensure all municipal property is covered

meet standard

approx 15 letters/potential claims per year

Service

Model Required

coordinates municipal own resources -with land sales and assistance from solicitor purchases for transfer and registration purposes Coordinates Records Management for the Town

x

deliver municipal election process Admin support for Mayor/Council -

contracted out to third party own resources with staff hired to man the polls own resources

Service Standard

Service Standard Exceptions

based on Land Sale by-law

meet standard

based on our retention by-law which reflects applicable legislation

meets standard in most departments

respond to all issues brought forward in a timely way

meet standard

Performance Outcomes

x

own resources

Responds to public own resources inquiries - calls, emails, in person municipal law own resources enforcement licence cabs, hawkers own resources and peddlers, refreshment vehicles, dogs, auctioneers, second hand stores and pawn shops

dog control

Basis of Delivery Expected Discretionary

x

based on various town by-laws - meet standard pro active patrols and complaints based on the related town by-law meet standard

x

x

x x x

respond to complaints in a timely meet standard fashion tabulators at a central voting meet standard location provide support for preparing correspondence, organizing

meet standard

voter turnout in 2012 -39.5%

Treasury

Town of Midland - Management Study Treasury - Municipal Service Matrix Service

Model

The service and brief description

How is it provided? Own resources? Contracted out Shared service, etc.

Basis of Delivery Service Standard Required Expected Discretionary Mandated by Typically No basis for What is the level of service you legislation or delivered by delivery other aim to provide? necessary for similar sized than public safety municipalities community and expected choice by residents

Prepare monthly and Own quarterly financial statements

Prepare annual financial statements

X

Own X

Prepare annual FIR.

Own

Own

Pay Bills

Own

Perform Payroll Function.

Own

X X

X

How often do you miss on your service standards? Please provide any statistics you may have

Performance Outcomes Any internal statistics you have tracking your performance? Please provide statistics relating to the service.

Accurate Financial Reporting for Council and Departments to make more informed financial decisions.

Don't normally miss; n/a Departments have real time access to view; Quarterly statements provided to Council at Meetings

Accurate Financial Reporting for annual audit purposes to be provided to ratepayers and to Ministry.

Due to PSAB changes, the 2009, 2010 and 2011 financial statements have been significantly delayed, however, will be on course for 2012.

n/a

Accurate Financial Reporting to be provided toMinistry.

Due to PSAB changes, the 2009, 2010 and 2011 FIR have been significantly delayed, however, will be on course for 2012.

n/a

Ensure all taxes and other receivables are collected in a timely manner.

No exceptions

n/a

Ensure all expenses are paid prior No exceptions to due dates.

n/a

Ensure all employees are paid on No exceptions time and at the correct amount.

n/a

X

Collect Taxes and Other Receivables

Service Standard Exceptions

Service

Model Required

We provide support Own for any financial questions departments may have regarding financial performance. We assist Own departments in determining the financing of capital projects. We coordinate the Own Town's Budgeting process in conjunction with the various Departments.

Basis of Delivery Expected Discretionary

Service Standard

Service Standard Exceptions

Performance Outcomes

Ensure Departments have information that they require to make informed decisions.

No exceptions

n/a

Ensure Departments have information that they require to make informed decisions.

No exceptions

n/a

Ensure Departments have information that they require to make informed decisions.

No exceptions

n/a

X

X

X

Human Resources

Town of Midland - Management Study Human Resources - Municipal Service Matrix Service

Model

The service and brief How is it provided? description Own resources? Contracted out Shared service, etc.

Recruitment

All aspects of recruitment are done through HR resource.

Training

Combination of HR resource and external vendors

Labour Relations

Benefits - Program Management

Own Resource, however may use legal council for some situations.

Basis of Delivery Service Standard Required Expected Discretionary Mandated by Typically No basis for What is the level of service you legislation or delivered by delivery other aim to provide? necessary for similar sized than public safety municipalities community and expected by choice residents Internal service to managers and departments to save costs. Yes

Some is legislative required

Bound by Collective Agreements

yes

yes

Both - own service and a consultant. yes

Disability Management

Compensation

Own Resource Bound by Collective Agreements

Yes

Own Resource

yes

If training is legislative, I aim to ensure it is done as bound by legislation. Some examples are Accessibility and Bill 168.

Service Standard Exceptions How often do you miss on your service standards? Please provide any statistics you may have

Performance Outcomes Any internal statistics you have tracking your performance? Please provide statistics relating to the service.

We've been successful in filling all positions through our own recruitment efforts.

In the 4 years since HR has been in place, there has been no use of external agencies to fill opportunities. We have not missed any required Accessibility Training was carried training as per legislations. out for over 200 employees by the January 1, 2010 deadline.

High degree of internal service in We have been successful in order to avoid costly mediations negotiating various collective and arbitrations. agreements and therefore avoiding a strike or lockout situation. We have requirements to meet We participate in a County Wide as per various collective benefit consortium to save costs. agreements. We've been successful in reducing benefit cost.

No strikes or lockouts for many years and a number of grievances have been withdrawn from the union.

We have a self founded and internally adjudicated model. We aim to get staff back as soon as possible or via modified return to work.

Sick time is down across all departments and we successful negotiated new wording in our collective agreements.

As required when looking to fill new positions or to obtain comparator data for existing staff or through negotiations.

As required

Reductions in benefit costs for 2013 into 2015. We have not increased any benefits in negotiations in 5 years.

Service

Model

Health & Safety

Own Resource

Employee Relations

Own Resource

Basis of Delivery

Required Bound by OHSA Legislative

Expected yes yes

Service Standard

Service Standard Exceptions

Performance Outcomes

Discretionary Work in supporting the H&S part- We did have a retainer time resource on annual training agreement with a 3rd on WSIB HR has been working to ensure consistency across the

We have been very successful in educating staff and rolling out We have been successful in reducing the number of annual

Planning and Development

Engineering

Town of Midland - Management Study Engineering - Municipal Services Matrix

Service

Model

The service and brief description

How is it provided? Own resources? Contracted out Shared service, etc.

The service and brief description

How is it provided? Own resources? Contracted out Shared service, etc.

Design Capital Service is provide by Infrastructure Projects both internal staff and outside consultants

Basis of Delivery Service Standard Required Expected Discretionary Mandated by Typically No basis for What is the level of service you legislation or delivered by delivery other aim to provide? necessary for similar sized than public safety municipalities community and expected choice by residents Typically No basis for What is the level of service you Mandated by legislation or delivered by delivery other aim to provide? than necessary for similar sized public safety municipalities community and expected choice b d Most cost effective service in a narrow construction season window X

Capital Project Tender Service is provided by Preparation both internal staff and outside consultants

X

Capital Project Administration

Service is provided by internal staff

X

Capial Project Inspection

Service is Provided by internal staff

X

Customer Service

Service is provided by internal staff

X

New Development Review

Service is provided by both internal staff and outside consultants

X

Many municipalities our size would contract out the preparation of tenders. These are done in house in most cases. Most cost effective service in a narrow construction season window. Most cost effective service in a narrow construction season window. Most cost effective service in a narrow construction season window. Many municipalities our size would contract out new development review to Consultants. These are done in

Service Standard Exceptions

Performance Outcomes

How often do you miss on your service standards? Please provide any statistics you may have

Any internal statistics you have tracking your performance? Please provide statistics relating to the service.

How often do you miss on your service standards? Please provide any statistics you may have

Any internal statistics you have tracking your performance? Please provide statistics relating to the service.

Due to our tendering policy and length of some projects, we don't have the staff to complete all capital projects in the year they are budgeted.

Service

Model

Required Subdivision Agreement Preparation

Service is provided by internal staff

Development Inspection

Service is provided by both internal staff and outside consultants

Building Application Review Engineering Dwgs & Records Maintenance

Service is provided by internal staff Service is provided by internal staff

Transit Management - Service is provided by Capital internal staff Engineering Services for other Departments

Service is provided by internal staff

Service Standard

Basis of Delivery

Expected

Discretionary

X

Many municipalities our size would contract out the preparation of Subdivision Agreements. These are done in house.

X

Many municipalities our size would contract out the inspection of new development to Contractors. These are done in

X X

X

X

Many municipalities our size would contract out Engineering Services for other Departments

Service Standard Exceptions

Performance Outcomes

Fire Services

Town of Midland - Management Study Municipal Service Matrix Fire Services Service

Model

The service and brief How is it provided? description Own resources? Contracted out Shared service, etc.

Public Education/Fire Own Resources Prevention Smoke Alarm FPO + Duty Staff Program Distribute Fire Safety FPO + Duty Staff + VFF Information Code Compliance Inspections and Information

FPO + Duty Crew

Building Plans Review FPO Fire Safety Training

FPO+ TO + Duty Staff

Basis of Delivery Service Standard Required Expected Discretionary Mandated by Typically No basis for What is the level of service you legislation or delivered by delivery other aim to provide? necessary for similar sized than public safety municipalities community and expected choice by residents

Service Standard Exceptions How often do you miss on your service standards? Please provide any statistics you may have

Performance Outcomes Any internal statistics you have tracking your performance? Please provide statistics relating to the service.

X Fire safety information; inspection; installation. Attend community events; school visits; station tours; Public Service Announcements.

X X

Inspections mainly limited to Urgent life safety matters; same request and complaint. day - Non-urgent matters; as convenient for owner.

X

As submitted

X X

Upon request

133 Request Inspections + 20 Inservice/Home Inspections + 5 Licensing + 17 Final Occupancy + 15 Complaint; 127 Municipal Record Searches; 52 Inquiries;

Review Fire Safety Requirements 37 Plans Reviewed; 25 to 30 groups

Fire Protection Services

Own Resources Supported by Other Fire Departments via Mutual Aid

Statistics for all emergency response calls provided in accompanying document.

X

Basic Fire Fighting (No Rescue)

X

Interior Structural Fire Fighting (w/Rescue)

X

Vehicle Fire Fighting

X

Grass, Brush, Forestry Fire Fighting

X

Marine Fire Fighting Shore Based

X

Medical Assistance (Advanced) and Defibrillation

X

No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices

Operations and Technician Level Hazardous Materials Response via Simcoe Response - Awareness County CBRNE Response Level Team - Lead from Barrie Fire

No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices

X

Transportation Vehicle Rescue

X

Water and Ice Rescue Shored Based and Water Entry (Vessel Based not provided)

X

Public Assistance

X

Ambulance Assistance

X

Police Assistance

X

No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered Community Risk Profile indicates in consideration on OFM vessel based service should be Guidelines and other recognized considered best practices No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices

Public Utilities Assistance

X

No service level established by Council policy. Service delivered in consideration on OFM Guidelines and other recognized best practices

Urban Search and Rescue

Provincial HUSAR Team (Toronto)

None - Provincial HUSAR Team (Toronto)

High Angle (Rope) Rescue

Not Provided

None - Require additional training and equipment to deliver this service

Not Provided

None - Require additional training and equipment to deliver this service

Not Provided

None - Require additional training and equipment to deliver this service

Not Provided

None - Require additional training and equipment to deliver this service

Confined Space Rescue

Farm/Silo Rescue

Trench Rescue

Community/Council may anticipate that this is a service MFD can provide, Community Risk Profile indicates this service should be considered Community/Council may anticipate that this is a service MFD can provide, Community Risk Profile indicates this service should be considered Community/Council may anticipate that this is a service MFD can provide, Community Risk Profile indicates this service should be considered Community/Council may anticipate that this is a service MFD can provide, Community Risk Profile indicates this service should not be considered Community/Council may anticipate that this is a service MFD can provide, Community Risk Profile indicates this service should be considered

Police

Town of Midland - Management Study Police - Municipal Service Matrix Service

Model

The service and brief How is it provided? description Own resources? Contracted out Shared service, etc.

Call Response

Basis of Delivery Service Standard Required Expected Discretionary Mandated by Typically No basis for What is the level of service you legislation or delivered by delivery other aim to provide? necessary for similar sized than public safety municipalities community and expected choice by residents

Own Resources

Yes

Specialty Services

Shared Service Yes

Community Service

Yes

Own Resources

Yes

Court Services

Yes

Own Resources

Yes

Yes

We respond to all calls for service, within limits of working shift, in significant cases we call more resources when needed. Emergency cases we respond to immediately.

Service Standard Exceptions

Performance Outcomes

How often do you miss on your service standards? Please provide any statistics you may have

Any internal statistics you have tracking your performance? Please provide statistics relating to the service.

Generally we respond to all calls but occasionally we fail to respond timely to minor incidents. Calls for service are almost always responded to within the shift.

We call upon provincial services Believe we meet all service to provide assistance with standards. homicides, tactical response, K9 etc. Utilized when needed. We provided education to 0 schools, and community groups, we hold a bike safety rodeo, participate in community events, provide education to victims of property crime. Midland is required to provide security for the court house that services the entire North Simcoe area and pays approximately 350k per year.

0

Service

Model Required

Dispatch Services

Yes / No.

Own Resources

A building that is within health standards and clean in appearance.

Yes Record Check Services

Own Resources

I/T

Own Resources

Yes

Yes

Service Standard

Service Standard Exceptions

Yes and no arises from the fact We have failed to meet that some provide their own dispatch targets for fire on a dispatch services and some use few occasions. a centralized dispatch model and purchase services from another police agency. The service provides dispatch services for Public utilities and Fire.

Own Resources

Yes

Cleaning Services

Basis of Delivery Expected Discretionary

0

We generate revenue by 0 providing record check services to a third party vendor and the public. Provided inhouse by person trained in both court services and I/T.

0

Performance Outcomes

Parks and Recreation

Town of Midland - Management Study Municipal Service Matrix Service

Model

The service and brief description

How is it provided? Own resources? Contracted out Shared service, etc.

Parks and Recreation Department North Simcoe Sports and Recreation Centre

Basis of Delivery Service Standard Required Expected Discretionary Mandated by Typically No basis for What is the level of service you legislation or delivered by delivery other aim to provide? necessary for similar sized than public safety municipalities community and expected choice by residents

Service Standard Exceptions How often do you miss on your service standards? Please provide any statistics you may have

Own resources for all unless otherwise noted Ice Aug 13 to April 22 X April 27 to Aug 7 X

MMHA arena Ice

July 7 to April 20 X

MMHA arena summer floor

Any internal statistics you have tracking your performance? Please provide statistics relating to the service.

2011

Centennial arena Ice

Centennial arena summer floor

Performance Outcomes

2011 - lost 2 weeks of ice rentals 1,828.25 hours ice, 9 ice hockey in Feb for chiller replacement, tournaments 160 lost hours 2011 - no exceptions 402.55 hours rented, 6 tournaments for ball hockey and lacrosse and 1 concert 2011 - no exceptions 1,828.85 hours rented, 6 ice hockey tournaments, 375 hours for public, parent & tot & seniorskating

April 26 to July 1

2011 - no exceptions

Jan 1 to December 31

2011 - no exceptions

Jan 1 to December 31

2011 - no exceptions

Jan 1 to December 31

2011 - no exceptions

Jan 1 to December 31

2011 - no exceptions

X

NSSRC Gymnasium X Community Hall X Multi Purpose room X Bill Thompson room X

306 hours rented, 6 tournaments for ball hockey and lacrosse, one trade show 1,486.60 hours rented for indoor sports. 15 tournaments of basketball and badminton 1,200.54 hours rented for banquets, meetings, shuffleboard,trade show etc 2,151.65 hours rented for meetings 1,611.80 hours rented for meetings, fitness classes,parties, etc

Service

Model Required

Basis of Delivery Expected Discretionary

Seniors room

Service Standard

Service Standard Exceptions

Jan 1 to December 31

2011 - no exceptions

Jan 1 to December 31

2011 - no exceptions

Jan 1 to December 31

2011 - no exceptions

Jan 1 to December 31

nil

Jan 1 to December 31

nil

Jan 1 to December 31

nil

Jan 1 to December 31

nil

meetings, various laws and regulations

nil

X

X

maintain and clean, safe, healthy facility

X Boardroom X Seminar Room X Sports Store

Contracted Out

Performance Outcomes 2,609.85 hours rented for meets, banquets, fitness classes, parties, etc 1,129.70 hours rented for meetings, other 243.45 hours rented for meetings, other

X Office Rentals

Leased to Groups / Businesses X

Publicity

Own Resources X

Customer Service

Own Resources X

Health and Safety

Cleaning and Maintenance

Own Resources

Own Resources

Air Cadets, Sea Cadets, Lift, Rogers TV, No Borders Fitness, Registered Massage Therapist, MMHA, PMBA, Civitan Club, Community Living Huronia, Deaf Access LED Sign, website, newspaper ads, bulletin boards Payments, inquireies, registrations, monitor cameras

Floors, washrooms, windows, lights, all general maintenance

Library

Town of Midland - Management Study Library - Municipal Service Matrix Service

Model

Circulation of materials Reference Questions, Readers' Advisory and other assistance

own resources own resources, shared data bases, ILL

Programming, Adult

own and brought in readers or speakers, etc.

Programming, Young Adult

as above

Programming, Children

as above

Programming, Outreach

as above

Books on own and Wheels volunteer Community own Centre and Civic Space

Basis of Delivery Required Expected Discretionary no

yes

Service Standard Patron satisfaction Patron satisfaction

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

Entertaining and informative presentations that appeal to our community audience Concentrate more on the entertainment aspect - try to engage youth Simple programming to engage the young and acquaint them with the Library Taking the service to the audience classrooms, service clubs, book clubs, Take books to the housebound Provide a comfortable, low cost and safe environment for community groups to meet and plan as they work toward community enhancemnt

Service Standard Exceptions

Performance Outcome

Service Electronic Resources

Model Own resources

In house Internet Own resource Access

Wireless Access County Assistance Public Tech Own Support

Friends Group and others who support Library

own

Collection Maintenance

Own

Community Partnerships

Basis of Delivery Required Expected Discretionary

no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

Some might - requires staff and time

no

Some might - requres staff and time

no

yes

no

yes

Own

Service Standard Through careful selection, budgeting and resource sharing with consortia we provide as many resources as we can afford To Provide as many access points as possible to meet demand To make the entire building a wi-fi zone To assist the public with their tech problems - ebook registration, help with online govt forms etc Work with Vols. As they raise funds and awareness to enhance services To provide a clean, current, useful, educational and entertaining selection of materials to a demanding audience and to maintain it all in as good a condition as possible To work with other organizations - BIA, C of C, service clubs, to increase awareness and usefulness for the good of all

Service Standard Exceptions

Performance Outcome

Service Space

Hours

Model

Basis of Delivery Required Expected Discretionary

Own no

yes

no

yes

no

yes

Own

Collection Management

Own

Tourism and general

Own

Web site

Own

no

yes

no

yes

Service Standard To provide a safe, sufficiently spacious and comfortable environment To establish hours that meet patron requirements To manage collection in the most efficient and staff effective way To act as ambassadors for the community by providing local info To provide a current and informative resource and an access point to all Library services and programs

Service Standard Exceptions

Performance Outcome

APPENDIX B 

CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND Schedule of Financial and Other Indicators for Comparator Municipalities (note 1) ------------------------------- Comparator Municipalities ------------------------------Collingwood Wasaga Beach Port Hope Average Mid Range

Midland

Midland as a Percentage of Average Mid Range

Notes

(1) ADMINISTRATION Administrative wages per household Administrative costs as a percentage of total municipal operating costs

$

208.16 $ 7.5%

200.56 $ 10.5%

129.12 $ 10.3%

241.16 $ 11.8%

190.28 $ 10.9%

200.56 10.5%

109.4% 69.4%

103.8% 72.2%

$

284.53 217

$

389.06 229

$

269.14 200

$

147.92

$

329.10 214

$

520.27 191

$

464.66 187

$

271.91 137

$

722.86 191

$

486.48 172

$

464.66 187

106.9% 111.3%

112.0% 102.1%

$ $

5,330.55 1,870.30

$ $

3,782.25 3,590.10

$ $

4,355.20 2,370.59

$ $

4,673.33 539.53

$ $

4,270.26 2,166.74

$ $

4,355.20 2,370.59

124.8% 86.3%

122.4% 78.9%

$ $

698.37 603.08

$ $

616.77 458.91

$ $

884.96 614.16

$ $

806.42 751.43

$ $

769.38 608.17

$ $

806.42 614.16

90.8% 99.2%

86.6% 98.2%

3.64 8.04 549.88 176.36 283.62

$ $ $ $ $

2.78 6.33 524.39 165.14 299.16

28.6% 127.7% 124.7%

$

3.83 5.89 417.36 153.92 433.70

3.64 5.89 549.88

$

1.04 7.51 685.72 231.97 368.87

130.1%

204.26 65.00 8.97

$

263.14 58.33 14.36

(2) FIRE Fire costs per household, net of non-taxation revenues Firefighters (full-time, part-time and volunteer) per 100,000 residents

86.5% 101.5%

(note 2) (note 2)

(3) POLICE Police costs per household, net of non-taxation revenues Police officers per 100,000 residents (4) ROADS Operating cost per paved roads per lane kilometre Winter maintenance cost per lane kilometre maintained (5) WATER AND WASTEWATER Water treatment and distribution cost per megalitre of water treated Wastewater treatment and collection cost per megalitre of wastewater treated (6) PARKS AND RECREATION Total kilometres of trails per 1,000 residents Total hectares of open space per 1,000 residents Square metres of indoor recreation space per 1,000 residents Square metres of outdoor recreation space per 1,000 residents Parks and recreation costs per household, net of non-taxation revenues

0.88 5.06 605.94 $

180.17

$

$

134.87 46.00 15.03

$

$

283.62

37.4% 118.8% 130.8% 140.5% 123.3%

$

204.26 64.00 15.03

100.7% 101.1% 80.0%

129.7% 92.2% 76.4%

100.0% 79.1%

100.0%

137.1% 127.8% 94.7% 42.9% 0.0%

123.1% 143.8%

(7) LIBRARY Library costs per hour of operation, net of non-taxation revenue Weekly hours of operation FTE paid staff

$

264.89 59.00 11.49

$

450.27 64.00 19.09

(8) FULL-TIME PERSONNEL Administration Fire Police Transit Public works Parks and recreation Libraries Planning Other

17 17 37 2 48 23 6 3 153

17 28

15 15

-

-

26 23 15 8 24 141

39 15 2 7 11 104

19 2 37

17 22

17

40 16 2 6

35 18 6 7 12

39 16

122

7 11

Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4)

(note 2) (note 3) (note 4)

-

KPMG analysis based on 2010 Municipal Financial Information Returns and other documentation. With the exception of Port Hope, all of the comparator municipalities have composite fire services. The calculation of average data for fire services excludes Port Hope and no mid-range information has been provided. Collingwood and Wasaga Beach utilitize OPP, while Port Hope uses a combination of OPP and municipal policing. Transit services are contracted out by the comparator municipalities.

42.9% 0.0%

APPENDIX C 

CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND

Schedule C.1

Schedule of Projected Financial Results and Municipal Taxation Assuming No Strategies for Cost Reductions or Incremental Non-Taxation Revenue For the Years Ending December 31 Budget 2012 (1) Wages and benefits

$

-------------------------------------------- Projected -------------------------------------------2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

15,715

16,171

16,640

17,073

17,517

17,972

(2) Other operating costs

7,135

7,313

7,496

7,683

7,875

8,072

(2) Contributions to reserves and reserve funds

3,118

3,118

3,118

3,118

3,118

3,118

(3) Debt servicing costs

1,690

1,690

1,690

1,690

1,690

1,690

27,658

28,292

28,944

29,564

30,200

30,852

(10,407)

(10,389)

(10,337)

(10,337)

(10,337)

(10,337)

MUNICIPAL LEVY

17,251

17,903

18,607

19,227

19,863

20,515

Municipal levy by property class: Residential and farm properties Multi-residential Commercial Industrial Other property classes (pipelines, farmlands and managed forests) Payment-in-lieu MUNICIPAL LEVY

12,061 785 3,478 734 50 143 17,251

12,517 815 3,609 762 52 148 17,903

13,009 847 3,751 792 54 154 18,607

13,443 875 3,876 818 56 159 19,227

13,887 904 4,005 845 58 164 19,863

14,343 934 4,136 873 59 170 20,515

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS Non-taxation revenues

$

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN MUNICIPAL LEVY AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL TAX PER HOUSEHOLD

3.8% $

1,913.53

1,985.88

3.9% 2,063.94

3.3% 2,132.79

3.3% 2,203.24

3.3% 2,275.58

CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MIDLAND

Schedule C.2

Schedule of Projected Financial Results and Municipal Taxation Including Strategies for Cost Reductions or Incremental Non-Taxation Revenue with Initial Council Support For the Years Ending December 31 Level of Council Support

Assumed Effective Date

(1) Wages and benefits

Budget 2012 $

-------------------------------------------- Projected -------------------------------------------2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

15,715

16,171

16,640

17,073

17,517

17,972

(2) Other operating costs

7,135

7,313

7,496

7,683

7,875

8,072

(2) Contributions to reserves and reserve funds

3,118

3,118

3,118

3,118

3,118

3,118

(3) Debt servicing costs

1,690

1,690

1,690

1,690

1,690

1,690

27,658

28,292

28,944

29,564

30,200

30,852

(10,407)

(10,389)

(10,337)

(10,337)

(10,337)

(10,337)

17,251

17,903

18,607

19,227

19,863

20,515

-

-

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS Non-taxation revenues MUNICIPAL LEVY BEFORE UNDERNOTED ITEMS Reduce Council size by two members Freeze Council remuneration Increase non-taxation revenue for NSSRC Full fund harbour operations through user fees Increase cost recovery through user fees for ice rentals during summer months Decrease service maintenance standards for parks and outdoor facilities Develop a tiered service maintenance standard for winter roads maintenance Develop a tiered service maintenance standard for summer roads maintenance Discontinue leaf removal activities after upload of service to Simcoe County Reduce number of free false alarms from three to one Increase fee for false alarms from non-residential properties

PROJECTED MUNICIPAL LEVY

Municipal levy by property class: Residential and farm properties Multi-residential Commercial Industrial Other property classes (pipelines, farmlands and managed forests) Payment-in-lieu MUNICIPAL LEVY

56% 67% 78% 67% 100% 56% 67% 67% 67% 100% 100%

Dec 1, 2014 Jan 1, 2013 Jul 1, 2013 Jan 1, 2013 Jun 1, 2013 Jan 1, 2013 Nov 1, 2013 Jan 1, 2013 Jan 1, 2013 Apr 1, 2013 Apr 1, 2013

(51) (37) (21) (5) (174) (147) (108) (137) (10) (10) (700)

(51) (37) (21) (5) (174) (147) (108) (137) (10) (10) (700)

(51) (37) (21) (5) (174) (147) (108) (137) (10) (10) (700)

(51) (37) (21) (5) (174) (147) (108) (137) (10) (10) (700)

$

17,251

17,343

17,907

18,527

19,163

19,815

$

12,061 785 3,478 734 50 143 17,251

12,125 789 3,497 738 50 144 17,343

12,520 815 3,610 762 52 148 17,907

12,953 843 3,735 788 54 154 18,527

13,398 872 3,863 815 56 159 19,163

13,854 902 3,995 843 57 164 19,815

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN MUNICIPAL LEVY AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL TAX PER HOUSEHOLD

(8) (19) (21) (5) (174) (74) (108) (137) (7) (7) (560)

0.5% $

1,913.53

1,923.69

3.3% 1,986.36

3.5% 2,055.05

3.4% 2,125.65

3.4% 2,198.00