Loading...
210118 Regular Council Meeting AgendaThe Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg Council Meeting AGENDA Monday, January 18, 2021 2:00 PM Electronic Meeting 1.Call to Order 2.Closed Session 3.Adoption of Agenda Proposed Resolution #1 Moved By: ________________ Seconded By: ________________ THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Council meeting of Monday, January 18, 2021, be approved. 4.Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 5.Adoption of Council Minutes of Previous Meeting 6.Presentations 6.1.Oxford County Service Delivery Review Implementation Facilitators: John Matheson, Principal, Strategy Corp and Michael Fenn, Senior Advisor, Strategy Corp 7.Delegations 8.New Business 9.Motions/Notice of Motions 10.Resolutions/Resolutions Resulting from Closed Session 11.By-Laws 12.Confirm Proceedings By-law 13.Items of Public Interest 14.Adjournment Proposed Resolution #2 Moved By: ________________ Seconded By: ________________ THAT the Council meeting of January 18, 2021 be adjourned at ___ p.m. Page 2 of 62 Joint Service Delivery Review | Summary Document November 2020 BACKGROUND In 2019, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing commenced a Regional Government Review of the governance, service delivery, and decision-making functionality of eight regional municipalities, including Oxford County. To complete this review, the Province appointed two special advisors. The mandate of the advisors was to provide expert advice to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and to make recommendations that focused on the following questions: • Questions on municipal governance and decision-making; o Is the decision-making (mechanisms and priorities) of upper- and lower-tier municipalities efficiently aligned? o Does the existing model support the capacity of the municipalities to make decisions efficiently? o Are two-tier structures appropriate for all of these municipalities? o Does the distribution of councillors represent the residents well? o Do the ways that regional councilors / heads of council get elected / appointed to serve on regional council help to align lower- and upper-tier priorities? • Questions on municipal service delivery; o Is there opportunity for more efficient allocation of various service responsibilities? o Is there duplication of activities? o Are there opportunities for cost savings? o Are there barriers to making effective and responsive infrastructure and service delivery decisions? On October 25, 2019 the Province announced that it will not be making any broad changes to regional governance in Ontario. Following the Province’s announcement, Oxford County commissioned Watson and Associates to address the municipalities’ request to review service delivery to ensure efficiency. While undertaking the study, and throughout the Provincial review process, the government heard that local communities should decide what is best for them in terms of governance, decision-making, and service delivery. As a result, the Province completed their review with the recommendation that local municipalities undertake their own reviews. Page 3 of 62 CHRONOLOGY 2019 January 15: Province of Ontario initiated a review of the governance, service delivery, and decision- making functionality of eight regional municipalities, including Oxford County January 27: Delegation of Oxford County Council met with Minister Clark seeking clarity on the expectations of the Regional Governance Review February 4: Oxford County Chart of Services submitted to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing February 6 and March 8: Each of the nine Oxford Heads of Council met individually with the Minister’s Special Advisors March 13: Minister Clark announced the launch of an online consultation for residents, businesses, and stakeholders March 27: Report CAO 2019-03 Regional Governance Review presented to County Council • Resolutions: that County Council request a meeting with Minister Clark, that County Council review and evaluate the governance options in developing a position on the regional governance review, and that the Warden convene a special meeting of council for the purpose of conducting a public session forum where members of County Council and lower tier councils will participate in a professional formulated and facilitated workshop to draw consensus and conclusions on: o what about our municipalities is important to protect; o an evaluation criteria to assess the relative merit of alternatives and the status quo; o critical success factors and key desired outcomes; o the evaluation of the current two-tier, a modified two-tier and single-tier options; o concluding recommendations October 25: Province announced it will not be making any broad changes to regional governance in Ontario 2020 June 10: Service Delivery Review – Oxford County Municipalities (Watson & Associates) and CAO Update, received at County Council by correspondence • Resolutions: that Council direct Staff to continue discussions with area municipal partners, and that the Warden convene a special meeting of council for the purpose of conducting a public session forum where members of County Council and lower tier councils will participate in a professional formulated and facilitated workshop to draw consensus and conclusions on: 1. what about our municipalities is important to protect; 2. critical success factors and key desired outcomes; 3. the evaluation of the current two-tier or any modified two-tier option; 4. any concluding recommendations September 23: Report WDN 2020-07 Service Delivery Review – Area Municipal Council Consultation Process presented to County Council Page 4 of 62 • Recommendations: that Report No. WDN 2020-07, entitled “Service Delivery Review – Area Municipal Council Consultation Process”, be received, that staff be directed to proceed with arranging the consultation process with Area Municipalities as described herein, and that costs related to acquiring the services of a professional facilitator to moderate and carryout the process be funded from the General Reserve • Resolution: that the recommendations contained in Report No. WDN 2020-07, titled “Service Delivery Review – Area Municipal Council Consultation Process”, be adopted SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Watson Report recommendations (attached) Oxford’s CAOs Update – discussion regarding the Watson report recommendations (attached) Page 5 of 62 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Oxford County\2019 Service Delivery Review\Report\Final Report-.docx Chapter 4 Recommendations Page 6 of 62 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-1 H:\Oxford County\2019 Service Delivery Review\Report\Final Report-.docx 4. Observations and Commentary The following provides for a high-level summary of the detailed recommendations provided in Chapter 3. The observations and commentary are summarized as follows: • Recommendations related to cost savings; • Recommendations related to enhancing service levels; and • Other recommendations. The recommendations are summarized by service and include a description of the general theme of the recommendations as well as the anticipated financial impacts, where applicable. The following assumptions are noted: 1) Cost estimates are provided in 2018$; 2) Implementation, timing, and staging will impact the timing of when savings may materialize; 3) Savings/costs may vary depending upon final implementation of the item; and 4) Savings and costs are summarized in total for benefiting municipalities and hence will vary by individual municipality. 4.1 Recommendations Related to Cost Savings Table 4-1 provides a summary of the detailed recommendations that are anticipated to provide cost savings for the municipalities. The total anticipated annual cost savings may range from $97,500 to $853,000. As well, total one-time cost savings for “joint purchase of IT services” will subsequently be determined based upon review of each municipality’s needs and savings will vary for each municipality. In certain instances, potential additional cost savings have been noted, however, quantification will be realized through further review by staff as per the recommendations. 4.2 Recommendations Related to Enhancing Service Levels Table 4-2 provides a summary of the detailed recommendations that are anticipated to enhance service levels for the municipalities. The total anticipated annual cost increases may range from $380,000 to $1,500,000. Additionally, the total one-time costs range from $75,000 to $100,000. In certain instances, additional study/review has Page 7 of 62 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-2 H:\Oxford County\2019 Service Delivery Review\Report\Final Report-.docx been identified and this further review will quantify potential further increases to service levels and any associated costs. 4.3 Other Recommendations Table 4-3 provides a summary of the remaining detailed recommendations. These recommendations are related to policy matters, mitigating risks, and matters for further review. Page 8 of 62 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-3 H:\Oxford County\2019 Service Delivery Review\Report\Final Report-.docx Table 4-1 Oxford County Municipalities Summary of Cost Saving Recommendations Service Recommendations Summary Annual Cost Savings One-time Cost Savings Benefiting Municipalities Animal Control Joint contract tender $1,500 to $7,500 All local municipalities Tax Collections Reduction in arrears mailing frequency $500 to $6,300 All local municipalities Police Consolidation of Police Boards $3,000 to $83,000 Blandford-Blenheim, East Zorra-Tavistock, Ingersoll, Norwich, and Tillsonburg Building Services, Chief Building Officials, and Property Standards Joint Purchase of IT Services to integrate Building and Finance software To be determined upon review of IT needs All local municipalities Emergency Management Additional coordination and assistance from County resource to eliminate duplication of effort $0 to $1,200 All local municipalities Roads, Bridges, Culverts, Active Transportation, and Structures Undertake detailed review of service provsion for operations, other studies, and formalization of service agreements $50,000 to $150,000 All municipalities Wastewater Development of capital plan for optimization Exact amount may vary based on outcomes of further study County Water/Wastewater Asset Management, Capital Programming, Financing, and Billing Review option for single billing provider $0 to $10,000 All municipalities Solid Waste Management Combined contracts and alignment of large item collection $0 to $220,000 All municipalities Municipal Drains Reduce time spent on doing locates $2,500 to $5,000 Blandford-Blenheim, East Zorra-Tavistock, Norwich, SouthWest Oxford, and Zorra Cemeteries Coordinated purchasing To be assessed by individual municipality Blandford-Blenheim, Ingersoll, Norwich, SouthWest Oxford, Tillsonburg, and Zorra Parks and Recreation Coordinated purchasing and user fee/cost recovery analysis $40,000 to $330,000 All local municipalities Trails Sharing of specialized maintenance equipment $0 to $40,000 All municipalities Land-use Planning Consolidation of Public Meetings May vary by municipality All municipalities Ambulance and Fire Coordination of ambulance/fire space No immediate financial impact but should be reviewed when new stations required All local municipalities Total $97,500 to $853,000 Page 9 of 62 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-4 H:\Oxford County\2019 Service Delivery Review\Report\Final Report-.docx Table 4-2 Oxford County Municipalities Summary of Enhanced Service Level Recommendations Service Recommendations Summary Annual Cost One-time Cost Benefiting Municipalities Fire, Police, Ambulance, Emergency Management, Roads, Water and Wastewater Common system for notifications $75,000 All municipalities Administration Standardize procurement process, addition of staff, and County- wide VOIP system $160,000 to $210,000 All municipalities Municipal Licencing Standardization of fees Cost Neutral All local municipalities Fire Additional fire inspectors $80,000 to $480,000 Blandford-Blenheim, East Zorra-Tavistock, Norwich, SouthWest Oxford, and Zorra Building Services, Chief Building Officials, and Property Standards Quarterly chapter meetings, shared IT personnel, and AMANDA Implementation Cost Neutral All municipalities Emergency Management Clarification of County Emergency Management Coordinator role Cost Neutral County Roads, Bridges, Culverts, Active Transportation, and Structures Standardized boundary road agreement and transportation master plan $75,000 to $100,000 All municipalities Transit Coordinated funding applications and enhance desirability of transit Cost Neutral Ingersoll, Tillsonburg, and Woodstock Water Development of procedure for changes to water system Cost Neutral All municipalities Stormwater Management Ponds Joint stormwater management pond maintenance program Cost Neutral Blandform-Blenheim, Ingersoll, and Zorra Solid Waste Management Encouragement of backyard composting Cost Neutral All municipalities Municipal Drains Full-time drainage superintendent Cost Neutral*Blandford-Blenheim, East Zorra-Tavistock, Norwich, SouthWest Oxford, and Zorra Cemeteries Develop working group and establish contingency reserve Reserve transfers to be assessed by individual municipality Blandford-Blenheim, Ingersoll, Norwich, SouthWest Oxford, Tillsonburg, and Zorra Parks and Recreation Additional staff positions, further study, establishment of a working group, and coordination of program schedules.$0 to $275,000 All municipalities Libraries Integrated systems between the County and Woodstock, coordinated purchasing, inventory current staff and strategically recruit, and utilization of technologies. $0 to $10,000 All municipalities Cultural Service Utilize facilities as community space, collaborate with neighbouring municipalities, and create links with economic development and tourism Cost Neutral All municipalities Trails Review existing agreements, coordinate promotion and development of trails, formalize maintenance standards across the County, and share equipment Cost Neutral All municipalities Land-use Planning Addition of Planning Coordinators, Revisions to policies, and water/wastewater approval authority to local municipalities $65,000 to $450,000 All municipalities Economic Development Establishment of policy to share investment leads Cost Neutral All municipalities Forestry and Woodlands Conservation Joint training of staff Cost Neutral All municipalities Total $380,000 to $1,500,000 $75,000 to $100,000 *Note: drainage superintendent positions are funded through Provincial grants and are able to be charged back to the property owner Page 10 of 62 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-5 H:\Oxford County\2019 Service Delivery Review\Report\Final Report-.docx Table 4-3 Oxford County Municipalities Other Recommendations Service Recommendations Summary Benefiting Municipalities Development Charges Continued coordination as opportunities arise All municipalities (except Woodstock) Debt Financing Review process for acquiring financing All municipalities Municipal Licencing Include higher fees for non-residents All local municipalities Tax Policy Create a formal policy for cooperation and coordination All municipalities Airport Develop long-term plan and review economic benefit through study Tillsonburg Land-use Planning Update County planning by-laws for risk mitigation County Page 11 of 62 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-1 H:\Oxford County\2019 Service Delivery Review\Report\Final Report-.docx 5. Conclusion and Next Steps 5.1 Concluding Observations This study’s purpose was to review service delivery in the County and provide recommendations with respect to reducing costs of providing the services or enhancing service levels while minimizing costs. Throughout the review, it was clear that the County and local municipalities have established a culture of cooperation and integration that has served to create efficiencies in providing services to the residents of the County. There are n umerous examples that include coordinated purchasing, joint tenders, and sharing of staff and resources. The recommendations in this study are based on numerous meetings and discussions with staff from all municipalities and across all service lines. The input from staff was integral in preparing the recommendations. The recommendations provided in Chapter 3 will be presented to Council for their review and consideration. These recommendations build upon the cooperation already established in the County and seek to provide residents with municipal services as efficiently and effectively as possible. 5.2 Next Steps Each local area municipal Council and County Council will receive this report for their review and consideration. Upon review and consideration of the report, the CAOs of each municipality and their respective Councils may wish to prepare an implementation plan that organizes the recommendations into immediate, short -term, and longer-term recommendations that may be considered upon accordingly. Whe re identified that further review and/or study is required, the area municipalities and the County may wish to begin undertaking those reviews in the shorter-term. Page 12 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 1 of 20 May 25, 2020 Title: Oxford Joint Service Delivery Review – CAO Update Objective The objective of this report is to present Council with the consultant’s summary recommendations from the Service Delivery Review, and make recommendations to councils based on a collaboration and consensus of the nine municipal CAO’s within Oxford County. Background In 2019 the Province announced that it would undertake a review of Regional Governments within Ontario. The purpose was to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of government services within these municipalities. The Terms of reference and mandate for the review are provided here from the provincial site to refresh memories on the purpose and goals of the review. Terms of reference for the special advisors Background Since Ontario’s regional municipalities were established in the 1970s, populations have grown or changed, infrastructure pressures have increased, and taxpayers’ dollars are being stretched. The government is committed to undertaking a review of regional government and Simcoe County to help ensure that the upper and lower -tier municipalities in these geographic areas are efficient and accountable to their residents and businesses. The review will cover Ontario’s eight regional municipalities (Halton, York, Durham, Waterloo, Niagara, Peel, Muskoka District, and Oxford County) and their lower-tier municipalities. Simcoe County and its lower-tier municipalities will be included in the review because of its rapid growth and associated challenges. Page 13 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 2 of 20 Mandate 1. The mandate of the advisory body is to provide expert advice to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and to make recommendations to the government on opportunities to improve regional governance and service delivery. Recommendations from the advisory body will focus on the following questions: Questions on municipal governance and decision-making; a. Is the decision-making (mechanisms and priorities) of upper and lower-tier municipalities efficiently aligned? b. Does the existing model support the capacity of the municipalities to make decisions efficiently? c. Are two-tier structures appropriate for all of these municipalities? d. Does the distribution of councillors represent the residents well? e. Do the ways that regional councillors/heads of council get elected/appointed to serve on regional council help to align lower and upper-tier priorities? Questions on municipal service delivery; f. Is there opportunity for more efficient allocation of various service responsibilities? g. Is there duplication of activities? h. Are there opportunities for cost savings? i. Are there barriers to making effective and responsive infrastructure and service delivery decisions? Oxford local municipalities CAOs and the County CAO, wishing to be proactive rather than reactive in the face of this review, met to discuss options to consider and make recommendations to their respective Councils. The decision was made to jointly conduct a service delivery review across the multitude of services provided by the municipalities to determine not only an inventory of what was being done, also how it was being done and whether or not there were efficienc ies to be found. The Study was to look at whether or not there were opportunities for generating costs savings to area taxpayers, or enhancing the level of services without increasing the costs associated with delivering those services. Each CAO took a report to their respective Council, recommending that a joint study be undertaken, with each municipality contributing $20,000 from the Provincial grant that was provided to every Ontario Municipality for the express purpose of service delivery improvements and modernization. Page 14 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 3 of 20 All nine municipal Council agreed to do so without hesitation. The CAOs along with staff support developed terms of reference and did a request for proposals. Six firms responded to the RFP. The proposals were then reviewed and ra ted, and the successful firm was selected. Watson and Associates, a firm familiar to the area, began their work and the process was underway. Analysis The report, conducted and finalized is approximately 500 pages in length and has approximately 90 recommendations. For expediency, Staff have reviewed the consolidated recommendations found within the Executive Summary. They have shared the high level discussion that took place at the CAO level, with participation from their various respective teams. Below the recommendations are broken down in the same format, with essentially the same wording as found within the Service Delivery Review Document itself. Oxford County Municipal Service Delivery Review Summary of Major Cost Saving Recommendations. (Table ES- 2 Watson Report) Animal Control Recommendation Summary – Joint tender Annual Cost Savings - $1500 - $7500 Benefiting Municipalities – All Local Municipalities CAO Discussion Currently most municipalities are using the same private contractor for animal control. There are very few firms in this line of work, hence there is very little competitiveness. Most municipalities communicate amongst themselves and the prices provided by the firm are similar if not the same across jurisdictions. The conse nsus reached was there was little advantage, based on current pricing to dissolve current contract for the sake of issuing a joint RFP. Recommendation: That the animal control process remain status quo, with municipalities continuing to share information to ensure fair pricing is achieved by all. Tax Collections Recommendation Summary – Reduction in arrears mailing frequency Annual Cost Savings - $500 - $6,300 Benefiting Municipalities – All Local Municipalities Page 15 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 4 of 20 CAO Discussion The need and the frequency or arrears notices varies from municipality to municipality and from taxpayer to taxpayer. It was agreed that each municipality should consider the need and frequency of tax reminder letters and reduce when and where ever possibl e to save the postage costs when able. Recommendation: That each municipality review the need and frequency of tax arrears reminder letters. Police Recommendation Summary – Consolidation of Police Boards (Exclude Woodstock) Annual Cost Savings - $3,000 - $83,000 Benefiting Municipalities – Blandford Blenheim, EZT, Ingersoll, Norwich Tillsonburg CAO Discussion The discussion primarily focused on the understanding that the Province was moving towards the consolidation of Police Service Boards under legislation. Recommendation: With the expectation that this will become a legislated requirement, savings potential be realized when the changes are implemented. Building Services, CBOs and Property Standards Recommendations Summary – Joint purchase of IT Services to integrate software Annual Savings – to be determined Benefiting Municipalities – All Local Municipalities CAO Discussion With the implementation of the Amanda software system there have been some discussion around the timeliness and effe ctiveness of the implementation. There have been some deficiencies noted as well from some users. Some discussion was held on whether local municipalities should provide additional financial resources to assist /facilitate the implementation. Recommendation: That as the County, with the support of the majority of local municipalities, determined it was in its interest to implement a new software, it would fall to the County to ensure that the software and implementation to full usability be financially supported. Emergency Management Recommended Summary – Additional coordination and assistance from County resource to eliminate duplication of effort Annual Savings - $0 - $1200 Benefiting Municipalities – All Local Municipalities Page 16 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 5 of 20 CAO Discussion The discussions focused on whether or not the County CEMC could be utilized for helping local municipal CEMC with the planning and coordination of annual exercises and administrative requirements. Although the report indicated the potential for very mode st savings, the concern was noted that when this was examined a few years ago additional staffing was proposed to deliver this assistance. A number of municipalities did not see the need to augment their current processes and resources. It was thought bes t to not pursue universally but allow municipalities with a need to work together. Recommendation: That only those municipalities that require additional resources or supports for CEMC and other emergency management duties, work cooperatively amongst themselves to ensure that they have adequate resources, rather than adding to additional potential costs on the County Levy, when others do not need that support. Roads and Bridges, Culverts, Active Transportation and Structures Recommendation Summary – Undertake a detailed review of service provisions for operations, other studies and formalization of service agreements. Annual savings - $50,000 - $ 150,000 Benefiting Municipalities – All CAO Discussion This is one of the larger, potential efficiency and savings identified in the SDR study. It was noted that a similar recommendation for the local municipalities was identified in a previous study but the recommendations where never implemented. The recommendation is to undertake a detailed specific study on the benefits of local municipalities assuming the day to day maintenance responsibilities of all county roads within its jurisdictions. These duties would be funded via the county levy with the County approved servicing standards. Capital replacement, Bridges and Structures would remain under the care and control of the County. Recommendation: That the nine member municipalities making up Oxford County conduct a detailed review on the service of road maintenance to determine if the service should be delivered by the local municipalities based on cost savings, safety and efficiencies. Wastewater Recommendation Summary – Develop Capital plan for optimization Annual Savings – Exact amount may vary based on outcomes of study Benefiting Municipalities – County CAO Discussion The consensus was that the County should be already doing this to determine the growth and expansion of the systems that they operate. They should be coordinating between planning, public works and local municipalities to ensure th at systems are robust and have growth capacities planned and implemented to keep pace with the grown and demand being realized in the current environment. Page 17 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 6 of 20 Recommendation: That the County ensure that studies are regularly undertaken to ensure the optimization of wastewater facilities in the county, to enable the serviced municipalities to meet their growth needs and expectations. Water/Wastewater Assets Management, Capital Programing, Financing and Billing Recommendation Summary – Review Option for single billing provider Annual Savings – $0 - $10,000 Benefiting Municipalities – All CAO Discussion The consensus was that this item should not be pursued. With the complexity of the relationships between the current two billing providers, ERTH Corp. and Tillsonburg and the County combined with little if any savings, this was not an item to be investigated further. Recommendation: That the status quo for billing of water and waste water be maintained. Solid Waste Management Recommended Summary- Combined contracts and alignment of large item collection Annual Savings - $0 - $220,000 Benefiting Municipalities – All CAO Discussion Currently Woodstock and SWOX provide waste collection for the county under agreements. There was no consensus that there was a need to roll these separate contracts into a unified county wide contract. There was general agreement that both the bag tag system and the large article collection systems be reviewed for efficiency. The primary concern was that limiting large article collection to an annual endeavor may contribute to illegal dumping during other periods of the year. The thought of examining whether a large article pickup bag tag, at a higher cost could be studied. It works in other jurisdictions across the province where to dispose of a couch or mattress, for example, would require a specialized sticker at a higher cost but could be done at any time. Recommendation: that the current arrangement for general waste collection remain. The system of bag tag user pay system along with a large article be reviewed to identify improvements to both systems. Municipal Drains Recommendation Summary – Reduce time spent on doing locates Annual Savings - $2,500 - $5,000 Benefiting Municipalities – the Rural Municipalities Page 18 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 7 of 20 CAO Discussion The general feeling was that the rural municipalities impacted by municipal drains, should work together to see if there are areas of joint cooperation and funding that would provide them benefits. Recommendation: That the Rural Municipalities further their own discussion on areas of mutual interest and benefit in regards to municipal drains. Cemeteries Recommendations Summary- Coordinated Purchasing Annual Cost Savings – Unknown to be assessed individually Benefiting Municipalities- Blandford Blenheim, EZT, Norwich, SWOX, Tillsonburg, Ingersoll and Zorra. CAO Discussion and Recommendation With no indication of any concrete savings or efficiencies , and the various methods that this service is delivered in local municipalities, it was agreed that this recommendation would not be pursued at this time. Recommendation: That no changes be recommended for the various municipal cemeteries. Parks and Recreation Recommendations Summary – Coordinated purchasing and user fee cost recovery analysis. Annual Cost Savings - $40,000 - $330,000 Benefiting Municipalities – All local municipalities CAO Discussion Each municipality indicated that in large part they are doing that analysis on a regular basis for their own fees bylaws and budget process. Coordinated purchasing is practices as most municipalities belong to groups that do facilitate group purchasing. Consensus was generally that each municipality in conducting its own Recreation Master Plan is in the best position to determine not only what services to provide, but also how to set user fees to recoup realistic costs associated with those programs. Recommendation: that municipalities continue to communicate and participate in coordinated purchasing to realized bulk savings or discounts on commonly required resources. Municipalities conduct regular community Master Plan Reviews to determine the level of services and associated fees for their respective communities. Page 19 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 8 of 20 Trails Recommendations Summary – Sharing of Specialized maintenance equipment Annual Savings - $0 - $ 40,000 Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion It was generally agreed that municipalities should generate a sound process for communication and all agreed to working towards sharing equi pment as a cost saving option. Recommendation: That all municipalities work towards sharing specialized equipment whenever possible to save funds and reduce duplication when practical. Land Use Planning Recommendation Summary – Consolidation of Public Meetings Annual Savings – May vary by municipality Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion Currently for many planning applications there is a process in place that two planning meetings are held. An example is for subdivision approval, meetings are held both at the local municipality and again at the County. The Planning Act does provide that one meeting could be held to satisfy both levels of government. Normally the local meeting draws the larger participation. By consolidating the meetings to one, whereby the local meeting is conducted on behalf of the County as well there would be some efficiency. County Planning Staff attend both meetings now. They would be able to make recommendations at either level by only attending the o ne meeting. For participating citizens, they would be able to address all their concerns at one time, assured that their issue and concerns would be shared at both levels. For developers, who we all know time is money, would be able to only use resources to attend and participate at one meeting instead of two. Other County jurisdictions use this mode. Some CAOs also wished to explore reassigning approval authority for subdivisions, consent (severances) to the local level. They felt that this would assi st in expediting development applications. However there was not a consensus reached. Recommendation: That County delegate public meetings for relevant planning applications to the local level, to facilitate efficiency and effectiveness of the public meetings, staff time, developer time and public consultation. Also consideration and review of other planning functions be conducted to see if other planning approvals could be delegated to the local level. If not universally to those wishing to undertake this responsibility. Page 20 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 9 of 20 Ambulance and Fire (Facility Space) Recommendations Summary – coordination of ambulance and fire space Annual Savings – No immediate financial impact but should be reviewed when new stations are required. Benefiting Municipalities- All Municipalities CAO Discussion All were in agreement that when new facilities are being considered, either fire or ambulance, the respective municipalities should communicate to see if a joint project is warranted or advisable. This could have the benefit of saving considerable dollars if shared facilities and construction projects could be coordinated.’ Recommendation: That the County and the local municipalities work together to facilitate joint capital construction on ambulance and fire facilit ies when timely and practical. Summary of Enhanced Service Level Recommendations (Table ES-3) Fire, Police. Ambulance, Emergency Management, Roads, Water and Wastewater Recommendation Summary – common system for notifications Annual Cost - $75,000 Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion The general understanding was that the County’s 511 system should be able to enhance the aforementioned notice requirements. Recommendation: That all municipalities participate in the 511 system. Administration Recommendations Summary – Standardize the procurement process, and County wide VOIP telephone system. Annual Costs - $160,000 - $210,000 Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion The majority of municipalities have made the transition to the County wide systems others are considering it or in the process of making the change. Those that have made the switch are pleased with the system, functionality and simplicity of use. There was no consensus on as standard procurement process, interested municipalities will continue discussions going forward. Recommendation: That the municipalities not on the county wide system consider joining at a time when it makes sense for their circumstances. Page 21 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 10 of 20 Municipal Licensing Recommendation Summary – Standardization of Fees Annual cost – Cost neutral Benefiting Municipalities – All Local Municipalities CAO Discussion The general understanding is that municipal licensing is supposed to be based on a strictly cost recovery basis. As this can vary from municipality to municipality, there is no easy mechanism to move all licensing fees to the same across the jurisdictions. In relation to marriage licences, there is ongoing discussion amongst the Clerks within the County to decide if there is advantages of a standardization of fees. As noted in the report there is not cost savings or tremendous service efficiency to be gained. Recommendation: That municipalities continue to follow the municipal act and the processes in place to establish fees in accordance with the legislation. Fire Recommendation Summary – Additional Fire Inspectors Annual Cost - $80,000 - $480,000 Benefiting Municipalities – Blandford Blenheim, East Zorra Tavistock, Norwich, South West Oxford, and Zorra CAO Discussion It was identified in the course of the study that the rurals, for the most part might benefit from augmenting their fire inspections service. However, there was not a unified demand in each municipality, and that they didn’t all need the equivalent of one full time inspector. For the most part Woodstock and Ingersoll feel that they are adequately served by the systems that they currently have in place. Tillsonburg is interested in discussions with others around additional staffing, however it was not committed to additional staffing. The consensus was that interested municipalities with needs should work together to establish the level of service necessary within their own community and work with neighbouring municipalities where capacity is not adequate. It was not supported to move these additional costs to the County when the need was not demonstrated uniformly by all. Recommendation: That each municipality determine the level of staffing required to meet their fire inspection requirements, and where deficiencies are noted work with neighbouring municipalities to fill any gaps cooperatively. Building Services, Chief Building Officials and Property Standards Recommendation Summary – Quarterly Chapter meetings, shared IT personnel and AMANDA implementation. Annual cost – Cost Neutral Benefiting Municipalities – All municipalities Page 22 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 11 of 20 Discussion CBOs currently meet regularly to discuss changes in the legislative requirements, the group is larger than just those municipalities within Oxford County. The County has indicated that it is not willing, and rightly so, to give proprietary rights to others than its own IT staff. It was acknowledged that there are some delays and issues with the full implementation of the AMANDA system. Municipalities are at various stages of implementation and problems still exist. CAO discussed the potential for local municipalities providing funding from their building department revenues (permits) with the County to add to staffing compliment to expedite the implementation. Not all municipalities agreed, with some feeling that the system was selected by the County and was chosen to serve more than just the building permitting and inspection requirement. Therefore it should be the County’s responsibility to ensure adequate resources to allow for full implementation. Property standards, again is a service that perhaps requires trained if not solely de dicated staff to deal with the growing need for by-law enforcement. It was discussed that municipalities should again, ascertain their needs and work with willing partners within the County for shared property standards officers. Discussion also took place around the need for the County to assume the lead in bylaw prosecutorial services. Recommendation: That CBOs continue to meet to ensure there is a common understanding of roles, responsibilities and legislation across all of Oxford. That the County allocate sufficient resources internally to ensure the successful and complete implementation of the AMANDA software. Municipalities continue discussions with interested parties about the potential for dedicated shared by-law enforcement staff. Discussions should take place about county leading and coordinating, bylaw prosecution, with staff trained in this role. Emergency Management Recommendation Summary – Clarification of County Certified Emergency Management Coordinator (CEMC) Annual Cost – Cost Neutral Benefiting Municipalities – County Page 23 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 12 of 20 CAO Discussion There was a general discussion that CEMC in most municipalities was not a dedicated role, often the responsibility of the Fire Chief within the community. If there was an opportunity for the County CEMC to assist in some of the more administrative functions, such as planning, exercises and plan documentation across the various municipalities it might be beneficial. Currently the County CEMC is a part time position, if this was once again made a full time position it might have the time to assist the local municipalities in their emergency management. Concerns were raised that there was a discussion of this a few years ago, and the proposal included an additional staffing component at the County. Some municipalities were not favour of additional cost other than moving the role to full time to assist the local level. Recommendation: That the nine municipalities discuss and clarify the role and function of the County CEMC, moving the position to full time if it could assist the local level in emergency management delivery within their communities. Road, Bridges, Culverts, Active Transportation and Structures Recommendation Summary – Standardized boundary road agreements and a transportation masterplan One Time Cost - $75,000 - $100,000 Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion Most municipalities within Oxford have at least one boundary road agreement with a neighbouring municipality. Many have road boundary agreements with more than one neighbouring municipality. Agreements tend to be unique to the road. There may be a benefit if all agreements were standardized across the county. It would not matter which two municipalities were covered by the agreement, the agreements would be consistent throughout the county. This would facilitate coordination and renewal of agreements going forward. It might also be beneficial for a Transportation Master Plan to be jointly undertaken by all nine municipalities, to understand linkages and areas for improvement and interconnectivity. Recommendation: That a committee of CAOs be established to develop a template for boundary road agreements to be utilized across the county, regardless of participants. Additionally, the nine municipalities should work together to conduct and all- encompassing Transportation Master Plan that identifies all interconnectivity and identifies areas for improved transportation opportunities. Page 24 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 13 of 20 Transit Recommendation Summary – Coordinated funding applications and enhance desirability of transit Annual Cost – Cost Neutral Benefiting Municipalities – Ingersoll, Tillsonburg and Woodstock CAO Discussion Tillsonburg and Woodstock currently operate transit systems. Tillsonburg has recently received provincial funding and will be operating a transit system throughout various municipalities, within and outside of Oxford County. All municipalities should monitor the developments of the new more regionalized service and be willing to enter into discussions when the initial pilot program is completed. Recommendation: That those municipalities with existing or proposed new transit opportunities discuss long term ramifications of providing transit systems, either independently or in partnership. Water Recommendation Summary – Development of procedure changes to water system Annual Cost - Cost Neutral Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion Consensus was there needs to be ongoing communication between the County and member municipalities when proposals for changes to the water system are warranted or contemplated. Recommendation: That ongoing discussions between local municipa lities and the County occur to ensure proper communication on the needs and requirements of the water systems. Storm Water Management Ponds Recommendation Summary – Joint storm water management pond maintenance program Annual Costs- Cost Neutral Benefiting Municipalities – Blandford Blenheim, Ingersoll and Zorra Page 25 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 14 of 20 CAO Discussion As a requirement of development, it is a requirement that pre development water flows be maintained post development while also ensuring quality control mechanisms be implemented. As a matter of course most developments have built these systems and they then are conveyed to the relevant municipality. These systems are now becoming due for municipal maintenance. No specific maintenance program or procedures have been implemented. Often the costs associated with the pond maintenance can be expensive. Some municipalities expressed the desire to work on a standardized program with other municipalities faced with the same issues. Recommendation: that those Municipalities that wish to work together to develop a standardized approach to storm water management ponds do so. Solid Waste Management Recommendation Summary – Encourage Back yard composting Annual Cost – Cost Neutral Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion The management of organics is of major concern to municipalities in Canada. Many municipalities have developed programs to try and deal with the volume of organics, and if possible reduce the amount of organics going to landfill facilities. Oxford County has for a number of years provided at a minimal cost back yard composters to residents through the local municipal offices. The program is not overly widely utilized or promoted any longer. The county has recently looked at a more elaborate organics option, this option has not been endorsed by County Council. Perhaps a refocusing and promotion of back yard composting might help the diversion rate for organics. A renewed promotion and potentially a free supply of composters might be beneficial and prevent the need for more elaborate, complex and costly systems to deal with organics. Recommendation: That a more systematic approach be used to enhance the use of back yard composting. Municipal Drains Recommendation Summary – Full-time drainage superintendent Annual Cost – Cost Neutral as drainage cost are borne by property owners Benefiting Municipalities – Blandford Blenheim, East Zorra-Tavistock, Norwich, South West Oxford and Zorra CAO Discussion Primarily a rural municipal issue municipal drains are none the less an important service in those communities. The Drainage Act in itself is an old technical piece of legislation that does require knowledge and experience to administer effectively. Sin ce the costs of the Superintendent can be allocated to maintenance and capital drainage works, it is possible to not impact taxes for this service. Again, where one municipality might not Page 26 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 15 of 20 have a sufficient ongoing work load to justify a full time superintendent, a partnership with various municipalities might be advisable. Recommendation: That the rural municipalities work together to determine if a shared full time drainage superintendent is feasible. Cemeteries Recommended Summary – Develop a working group to establish contingency reserve Annual Cost – Reserve transfers to be assessed by individual municipalities Benefiting Municipalities – Blandford Blenheim, Ingersoll, Norwich, South West Oxford, Tillsonburg and Zorra CAO Discussion Based on the unique characteristics of each municipal cemetery operations there was no need identified to establish either a working group, or to develop a system for contingency reserves, not all ready administered by perpetual care requirements of the Act. Recommendation: That this study recommendation not be pursued. Parks and Recreation Recommendation Summary – Hire Additional staff positions, further study, establishment of a working group and coordination of programs and schedules. Annual Cost - $0 -$275,000 Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion Programs and activities developed and implemented in a municipality tends to be based on the demographics and the expressed needs of the community. Standardization is not warranted. Additional staffing costs are not top of list, as maintaining the level of taxation is a priority in every community. No deficiencies or gaps in service were identified. Recommendation: That each municipality should be responsible for the development and delivery of recreational services based on the needs of the community and the availability of budget. Each municipality should be undertaking a Recreation Master plan every 5 – 10 years to make sure its recreational programs are aligned with the wants and needs of the community it serves. Page 27 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 16 of 20 Libraries Recommendation Summary – Integrated systems between the County and Woodstock, coordinated purchasing, inventory current staff and strategically recruit and the utilization of technologies Annual Cost - $0 - $10,000 Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion There are two independent Library systems within Oxford County, Woodstock and the County. The recommendations are a matter between the two boards, for consideration and utilization. Recommendation: That the report recommendations be shared with the Public Library Boards for Woodstock and the County for discussion and determination. Cultural Service Recommendation Summary – Utilize facilities as community space, collaborate with neighbouring municipalities and create links with economic development and tourism. Annual Cost – Cost Neutral CAO Discussion Consensus was that this was already being done when practical and beneficial and should continue to do so. Recommendation: That all municipalities work together on cultural matters that provide economic value and tourism opportunities across the whole county. Trails Recommendation Summary – Review existing agreements, coordinate promotion and development of trails, formalized maintenance standards across the County and share equipment Annual Cost - Cost Neutral Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion The CAOs were in agreement that this should be undertaken. A coordinated approach be organized across all municipalities to work on the implementation of the recommendations. Recommendation: That the nine municipalities work cooperatively towards the implementation of the study recommendations. Page 28 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 17 of 20 Land Use Planning Recommendation Summary – Addition of Planning Coordinators, Revision to policies and water and wastewater approval authority to local municipalities Annual Cost - $65,000 - $450,000 Benefiting Municipalities CAO Discussion There was a shared belief by the majority of the CAO that additional staff at the County Planning Department is warranted. It was argued that applications are being processed slower than what most would like to see take place. There is concern that Official Plan reviews and comprehensive Zoning reviews are not taking place in a timely a manner as necessary and that is due to insufficient staffing numbers within the department. Other policy requirements, like secondary dwellings have not been undertaken in a timely fashion, and again it primarily is because the workload at the department level exceeds the human resources available to undertake the work. Recommendation: That the County review its staffing component, workload and make enhancement to staffing levels to meet the needs of the municipalities in a timelier manner. Economic Development Recommendation Summary – Establishment of a policy to share investment leads Annual Costs- Cost Neutral Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion Ingersoll, Tillsonburg and Woodstock each run economic development departments. They are also members of the Southern Ontario Marketing Alliance with other non-Oxford municipal partners. The five rural municipalities have partnered and work together unde r the Rural Oxford Development Corporation. Through various other economic development tables all groups work collaboratively on areas of mutual interest. Recommendation: That all municipalities support one and other in general economic development actives that enhance the benefit to all. Forestry and woodlands Conservation Recommendation Summary – Joint training of Staff Annual Cost – Cost Neutral Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion Generally it was understood that this recommendation concerned the coordination of training, specifically chainsaw training for municipal staff. Recommendation: That joint training be undertaken whenever practical for the efficiency and cost effectiveness for those participating. Page 29 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 18 of 20 Oxford County Municipalities Other Recommendations – Table ES – 4 Development Charges Recommendation Summary – Continued Coordination as opportunities arise Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities (Except Woodstock) CAO Discussion For the past few Development Charges Cycles, there has been joint tendering done, with the exception of Woodstock. Woodstock was not able to participate due to the timing involved with boundary adjustments and the associated implications. Recommendation: That all municipalities will look at opportunities to partner in joint tenders for Development Charges. Debt Financing Recommendation Summary – Review process for acquiring financing Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion As a regional government, debt financing is an Upper Tier responsibility. There may be some benefits to the greater borrowing power and credit rating associated with the County. However a number of municipalities would like to have the availability of sourcing its own debt when needed. It doesn’t mean that municipalities could not finance through the County only that they be given the option of doing debt financing in house when beneficial or expedient. All municipalities are still bound by the debt limitations that are established via legislation by the Province. It is only in Regional Governments that local municipalities are not allowed to secure their own long term borrowing needs. Recommendation: That a review be undertaken, evaluating the benefits and risk of allowing local municipalities to source their own borrowing requirements and implemented unless the study determines the risk benefit analysis prove to be unwise. Municipal Licensing Recommendation Summary – Include higher fees for non-residents Benefiting Municipalities- All Municipalities CAO Discussion Again as discussed earlier within the report, municipal licensing, strictly speaking, should be based on a fee recovery basis. Each municipality would have to make a determination when establishing licencing fees, the appropriateness of the level determined. Recommendation: That each municipality do a comprehensive analysis when establishing licencing fees within their jurisdiction. Page 30 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 19 of 20 Tax Policy Recommendation Summary – Create a formal policy for cooperation and coordination Benefiting Municipalities – All Municipalities CAO Discussion As tax policy does have implications on all municipalities, it would be advantageous for an opportunity of all local municipalities to make comments or provide input before tax policy changes are implemented. Recommendation: That the County in partnership with local municipalities develop a policy on tax policy changes and implementation. Airport Recommendation Summary – Develop long-term plan and review economic benefit through a study Benefiting Municipalities – Tillsonburg CAO Discussion Although the argument that having a local airport might provide some economic value to the entire area, that data is not readily available. A study might be worthwhile to demonstrate what, if any value other municipalities receive from the airport. Should value be demonstrated, funding request could follow. Recommendation: That Tillsonburg conduct an economic impact analysis to support it argument for wider funding contribution from member municipalities in Oxford County. Land Use Planning Recommendation Summary – Update County planning bylaws for risk mitigation Benefiting Municipalities – County CAO Discussion Agreed Recommendation: That the County update their planning bylaws accordingly. Other Items Water and Waste water CAO Discussion Issues around water and wastewater planning were also discussed and it was agreed that a committee of CAOs meet with the County Public Works group to discuss and develop improvements to forecasting, system expansion and interim financing for growth required services. Page 31 of 62 Department Report Regular Meeting of Council June 2020 Page 20 of 20 Joint Purchasing Position CAO Discussion Discussion was held on whether or not it would be advantageous to have a joint purchasing option coordinated at the County level. Some municipalities were in favour of exploring this option, while others did not see it necessary and were concerned about added expenses when not required. It was ultimately decided that interested municipalities should work together to determine their purchasing needs and make partnerships where warranted. Joint Health and Safety Coordinator CAO Discussion The idea of a County staff position(s) for a health and safety coordinator was discussed. There were again various opinions if this should be a County position, or whether this could be a shared resource by interested local municipalities. The consensus reached was whether it was a county position or a shared partnership it should be based on a user pay agreement, whereby only those utilizing the service would pay for its costs. Inter- Municipal Implications Financial Implications The financial implications are detailed within the Watson report itself, and captured for the most part in the background section of this staff report. Where costs are noted there is often a variation, or range of potential costs or cost saving dependant on the take up, or number of municipalities that might participate in any given undertaking. More detail budgting and cost estimations would have to be undertaken to fine tune any additional costs for cost savings that have been noted in the report Recommendation Attachments Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Oxford County 2019 Service Delivery Review – Final Report Page 32 of 62 ©STRATEGYCORP 2020 Oxford County Joint Service Delivery Review Workbook A Workshop to Consider Implementation Issues Arising from the Watson JSDR John Matheson and Michael Fenn Page 33 of 62 Questions… •The purpose of this session is to gauge Council interest in implementing Report Service Delivery Recommendations. •For each we will provide you with a brief summary of service delivery recommendations from the Joint CAO Report (May 2020), and ask four questions: 1.(What are the) critical success factors and key desired outcomes? •What would success look like? 2.What about your municipality is important to protect? •Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go 3.(What is your) evaluation of the current two-tier or any modified two-tier service delivery options? •Overall, is this a positive way to evolve how we deliver services? 4.Any concluding comments StrategyCorp’s Role: •We were not retained to do an independent analysis of the recommendations which were prepared by another firm and analyzed by your officials. •Our role is to facilitate the collection of your general views about implementation of the service delivery recommendations, such as they are, and based on your current familiarity with them. •No specific decisions are expected. •The workshop is focused on service delivery and not related togovernance. 2 Page 34 of 62 The Goal Hopefully, we can find some general guidelines or principles for future service delivery collaboration, such as… •“Any service delivery proposal should deliver these benefits…” or •“Any service delivery proposal should respect these boundaries…” •We will take all of your comments. •We will see if there is consensus. •If not, we will report that there was a divided view. When thinking about service delivery collaboration, what goals or principles matter to you? 3 Page 35 of 62 Watson Recommendations: 2 Main Types 1. Opportunities for Cost Savings 2. Opportunities for Service Improvements Not Requiring Additional Investment Requiring Additional Investment 5 Initiatives of greater than $40k Smaller initiatives 4 Page 36 of 62 1. Opportunities for Cost Savings1a.Cost Savings Initiatives greater than $40K 5 Initiatives of greater than $40k Smaller initiatives 5 Page 37 of 62 The Five Main Initiatives (greater than $40K) Roads and Bridges, Culverts, Active Transportation and Structures (Potential savings) $50-150k Parks and Recreation (Potential savings) $40-330k Solid Waste Management (Potential savings) $0-220k Police (Potential savings) $3 –83k Trails (Potential savings) $0 -40k These recommendations account for 96% of the up to $853K in identified savings opportunities in the Report 6 Page 38 of 62 How the workshop is organized 1. For each recommendation we have included a “refresher” from the Joint CAO Report Summary and Recommendations from Joint CAO Report (May 2020) 2. We will then consider questions in the context of each recommendation 7 Page 39 of 62 Roads and Bridges, Culverts, Active Transportation and Structures Summary from Joint CAO Report (May 2020)Recommendation Summary •Undertake a detailed review of service provisions for operations, other studies and formalization of service agreements.•Annual savings -$50,000 -$ 150,000 •Benefiting Municipalities –All CAO Discussion•This is one of the larger, potential efficiency and savings identified in the SDR study. It was noted that a similar recommendation for the local municipalities was identified in a previous study but the recommendations where never implemented. •The recommendation is to undertake a detailed specific study on the benefits of local municipalities assuming the day-to-ay maintenance responsibilities of all county roads within its jurisdictions. These duties would be funded via the county levy with the County approved servicing standards. Capital replacement, Bridges and Structures would remain under the care and control of the County. CAO Recommendation (May 2020): •That the nine member municipalities making up Oxford County conduct a detailed review on the service of road maintenance to determine if the service should be delivered by the local municipalities based on cost savings, safety and efficiencies. 8 Page 40 of 62 Roads, Bridges etc.: $50-150k (What are the) critical success factors and key desired outcomes? (What would success look like?) What about your municipality is important to protect? Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go (What is your) evaluation of the current two-tier or any modified two- tier options? Overall, is this a positive way to evolve how we deliver services? 4. Other comments? 9 Page 41 of 62 Parks and Recreation: CAO Discussion Summary from Joint CAO Report (May 2020) Recommendations Summary •Coordinated purchasing and user fee cost recovery analysis. •Annual Cost Savings -$40,000 -$330,000 •Benefiting Municipalities –All local municipalities CAO Discussion •Each municipality indicated that in large part they are doing that analysis on a regular basis for their own fees bylaws and budget process. •Coordinated purchasing is practiced as most municipalities belong to groups that do facilitate group purchasing. Consensus was generally that each municipality in conducting its own Recreation Master Plan is in the best position to determine not only what services to provide, but also how to set user fees to recoup realistic costs associated with those programs. CAO Recommendation (May 2020): •that municipalities continue to communicate and participate in coordinated purchasing to realized bulk savings or discounts on commonly required resources. •Municipalities conduct regular community Master Plan Reviews to determine the level of services and associated fees for their respective communities 10 Page 42 of 62 Parks and Recreation: $40-330k What would success look like? What about your municipality is important to protect? Overall, is this a positive opportunity to pursue? Other comments?(What are the) critical success factors and key desired outcomes? (What would success look like?) What about your municipality is important to protect? Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go (What is your) evaluation of the current two-tier or any modified two- tier options? Overall, is this a positive way to evolve how we deliver services? 4. Other comments? 11 Page 43 of 62 Solid Waste Management CAO Discussion Summary from Joint CAO Report (May 2020) Recommendations Summary: •Recommended Summary-Combined contracts and alignment of large item collection •Annual Savings -$0 -$220,000 •Benefiting Municipalities –All CAO Discussion •Currently Woodstock and SWOX provide waste collection for the county under agreements. There was no consensus that there was a need to roll these separate contracts into a unified county wide contract. •There was general agreement that both the bag tag system and the large article collection systems be reviewed for efficiency. The primary concern was that limiting large article collection to an annual endeavor may contribute to illegal dumping during other periods of the year. The thought of examining whether a large article pickup bag tag, at a higher cost could be studied. It works in other jurisdictions across the province where to dispose of a couch or mattress, for example, would require a specialized sticker at a higher cost but could be done at any time. Recommendation: that the current arrangement for general waste collection remain. •The system of bag tag user pay system along with a large article be reviewed to identify improvements to both systems. 12 Page 44 of 62 Solid Waste Management: $0-220k What would success look like? What about your municipality is important to protect? Overall, is this a positive opportunity to pursue? Other comments?(What are the) critical success factors and key desired outcomes? (What would success look like?) What about your municipality is important to protect? Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go (What is your) evaluation of the current two-tier or any modified two- tier options? Overall, is this a positive way to evolve how we deliver services? 4. Other comments? 13 Page 45 of 62 Police: CAO Discussion Summary from Joint CAO Report (May 2020) •Recommendation Summary –Consolidation of Police Boards (Exclude Woodstock) Annual Cost Savings -$3,000 -$83,000 •Benefiting Municipalities –Blandford Blenheim, EZT, Ingersoll, Norwich Tillsonburg CAO Discussion •The discussion primarily focused on the understanding that the Province was moving towards the consolidation of Police Service Boards under legislation. CAO Recommendation (May 2020): •With the expectation that this will become a legislated requirement, savings potential be realized when the changes are implemented. 14 Page 46 of 62 Police Services Board: $3-83k What would success look like? What about your municipality is important to protect? Overall, is this a positive opportunity to pursue? Other comments?(What are the) critical success factors and key desired outcomes? (What would success look like?) What about your municipality is important to protect? Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go (What is your) evaluation of the current two-tier or any modified two- tier options? Overall, is this a positive way to evolve how we deliver services? 4. Other comments? 15 Page 47 of 62 Trails: CAO Discussion Summary from Joint CAO Report (May 2020) Summary –Sharing of Specialized maintenance equipment •Annual Savings -$0 -$ 40,000 •Benefiting Municipalities –All Municipalities CAO Discussion •It was generally agreed that municipalities should generate a sound process for communication and all agreed to working towards sharing equipment as a cost saving option. CAO Recommendation (May 2020): •That all municipalities work towards sharing specialized equipment whenever possible to save funds and reduce duplication when practical. 16 Page 48 of 62 Trails: $0-40k What would success look like? What about your municipality is important to protect? Overall, is this a positive opportunity to pursue? Other comments?(What are the) critical success factors and key desired outcomes? (What would success look like?) What about your municipality is important to protect? Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go (What is your) evaluation of the current two-tier or any modified two- tier options? Overall, is this a positive way to evolve how we deliver services? 4. Other comments? 17 Page 49 of 62 1. Opportunities for Cost Savings1b.Cost Savings Smaller Initiatives 5 Initiatives of greater than $40k Smaller initiatives 18 Page 50 of 62 1b. Cost Savings: Smaller Initiatives •Slide 20 sets out 10 smaller initiatives that have a combined upside of up to $30,000. •They are briefly summarized. •The last column is a brief summary of the recommendation of the Joint CAO Recommendations. •We will take your comments on them as before, but given their relative size, we do not propose to spend as much time on them. 19 Page 51 of 62 Other initiatives offering lesser savings Service Recommendations Summary Annual Cost Savings Benefiting Municipalities CAO Recommendation (edited summary) •Animal Control •Joint contract tender $1,500 to $7,500 All local municipalities •Keep status quo (p. 3) •Tax Collections •Reduction in arrears mailing frequency $500 to $6,300 All local municipalities •Each municipality to review (p. 4) •Building Services, Chief Building Officials, and Property Standards •Joint Purchase of IT Services to integrate Building and Finance software To be determined All local municipalities •County (with support of a majority of locals) to decide on new software (p. 4) •Emergency Management •Additional coordination and assistance from County resource to eliminate duplication of effort $0 to $1,200 All local municipalities •Local Municipalities requiring more support arrange it among themselves; not through County and levy (p. 5) •Wastewater •Development of capital plan for optimization Exact amount may vary based on outcomes of further study County •County to undertake regular studies to optimize wastewater facilities to meet needs of serviced municipalities (p. 6) •Water/Wastewater Asset Management, Capital Planning, Financing, & Billing •Review option for single billing provider $0 to $10,000 All municipalities •Keep status quo (p. 6) •Municipal Drains •Reduce time spent on doing locates $2,500 to $5,000 Rural Municipalities •Rural municipalities to further their own discussion on areas of mutual interest (p. 7) •Cemeteries •Coordinated purchasing To be assessed by individual municipality Blandford-Blenheim, Ingersoll, Norwich, SouthWest Oxford,Tillsonburg, and Zorra •Keep status quo at this time (p. 7) •Land-use Planning •Consolidation of Public Meetings May vary by municipality All municipalities •County delegate public meetings for relevant planning applications to the local level, •Review planning functions for other approvals to delegate to the local level. •Ambulance and Fire •Coordination of ambulance/fire space No immediate financial impact but should be reviewed when new stations required All local municipalities •County and local municipalities work together to facilitate joint capital construction on ambulance and fire facilities when practical. (p. 9) Total $4,500 to $30,000 20 Page 52 of 62 Principles regarding Smaller Opportunities What would success look like Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go Overall, is this a positive opportunity to pursue Other comments? (What are the) critical success factors and key desired outcomes? (What would success look like?) What about your municipality is important to protect? Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go (What is your) evaluation of the current two-tier or any modified two- tier options? Overall, is this a positive way to evolve how we deliver services? 4. Other comments? 21 Page 53 of 62 2. Opportunities for Service Improvement2a.Service Improvement Not requiring additional Investment Not Requiring Additional Investment Requiring Additional Investment 22 Page 54 of 62 Recommendations: Cost Neutral Service Improvements Service Recommendations Summary Benefiting Municipalities CAO Recommendation (edited summary) •Municipal Licencing Standardization of fees All local municipalities Municipalities continue to set fees as per Municipal Act •Building Services, Chief Building Officials, and Property Standards Quarterly chapter meetings, shared IT personnel, and AMANDA Implementation All municipalities That CBOs continue to meet to discuss common approaches across all of Oxford. County to complete implementation of the AMANDA software. Evaluate potential for dedicated shared by-law enforcement staff. •Emergency Management Clarification of County Emergency Management Coordinator role County Municipalities clarify the role of the County CEMC, moving the position to full time if it could assist the local level in emergency management delivery (p. 12) •Transit Coordinated funding applications and enhance desirability of transit Ingersoll, Tillsonburg, and Woodstock Those municipalities with existing/proposed transit opportunities discuss long term ramifications of providing transit systems, either independently or in partnership. (p. 13) •Water Development of procedure for changes to water system All municipalities Continue ongoing discussions. (p. 14) •Stormwater Management Ponds Joint stormwater management pond maintenance program Blandform-Blenheim, Ingersoll, and Zorra Municipalities that wish to work together to develop a standardized approach to storm water management ponds do so. (p. 14) •Solid Waste Management Encouragement of backyard composting All municipalities Promote backyard composting. (p. 14) •Municipal Drains Full-time drainage superintendent Blandford-Blenheim, East Zorra-Tavistock, Norwich, SouthWest Oxford, and Zorra rural municipalities work together to determine if a shared full time drainage superintendent is feasible (p. 15) •Cultural Service Utilize facilities as community space, collaborate with neighbouring municipalities, and create links with economic development and tourism All municipalities Municipalities work together on cultural matters that provide economic value and tourism opportunities across the whole county (p. 16) •Trails Review existing agreements, coordinate promotion and development of trails, formalize maintenance standards across the County, and share equipment all municipalities Municipalities work cooperatively towards the recommendations (p. 16) •Economic Development Establishment of policy to share investment leads All municipalities Municipalities support one and other in economic development actives that enhance the benefit to all. (p. 17) •Forestry and Woodlands Conservation Joint training of staff All municipalities That joint training be undertaken whenever practical for the efficiency and cost effectiveness for those participating. (p. 17)23 Page 55 of 62 Principles regarding Service Improvements Requiring No Investment What would success look like Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go Overall, is this a positive opportunity to pursue Other comments? (What are the) critical success factors and key desired outcomes? (What would success look like?) What about your municipality is important to protect? Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go (What is your) evaluation of the current two-tier or any modified two- tier options? Overall, is this a positive way to evolve how we deliver services? 4. Other comments? 24 Page 56 of 62 2. Opportunities for Service Improvement2b.Service Improvement Requiring additional Investment Not Requiring Additional Investment Requiring Additional Investment 25 Page 57 of 62 Service Recommendations Summary Annual Cost /One-time Cost Benefiting Municipalities CAO Recommendation (edited summary) •Fire, Police, Ambulance, Roads, Emergency Management, Water& Wastewater •Common system for notifications $75k All municipalities All municipalities participate in 511 System (p. 9) •Administration •Standardize procurement process,addition of staff,and County-wide VOIP system $160k to $210k All municipalities Municipalities not on the county system consider joining when it makes sense for them. (p. 9) •Fire •Additional fire inspectors $80k to $480k Blandford-Blenheim, East Zorra-Tavistock,Norwich, SouthWest Oxford, and Zorra Municipalities assess staffing required to meet their fire inspection requirements, and fill any gaps with neighbouring municipalities (p. 9) •Roads, Bridges, Culverts, Active Transportation, and Structures •Standardized boundary road agreement and transportation master plan $75k to $100k All municipalities Develop a template for boundary road agreements to be utilized across the County Create a Transportation Master Plan covering entire County (p. 12) •Cemeteries •Develop working group and establish contingency reserve Reserve transfers to be assessed by individual municipality Blandford-Blenheim, Ingersoll, Norwich, SouthWest Oxford, Tillsonburg, and Zorra Not Recommended (p. 15) •Parks and Recreation •Additional staff positions, further study, establishment of a working group, and coordination of program schedules. $0 to $275k All municipalities Each municipality should assess its own needs, and should undertake a Recreation Master plan every 5 –10 years (p. 15) •Libraries •Integrated systems between the County and Woodstock, coordinated purchasing,inventory current staff and strategically recruit,and utilization of technologies. $0 to $10k All municipalities Share recommendation with Library Boards for Woodstock and County (p. 16) •Land-use Planning •Addition of Planning Coordinators, Revisions to policies, and water/wastewater approval authority to local municipalities $65k to $450k All municipalities County to review its staffing and make enhancements to meet the needs of the municipalities in a timelier manner. (p. 17) Total $380k –1,500k $75k to $100k Recommendations: Service Improvements Requiring Investments 26 Page 58 of 62 Principles regarding Service Improvements Requiring Investment What would success look like Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go Overall, is this a positive opportunity to pursue Other comments? (What are the) critical success factors and key desired outcomes? (What would success look like?) What about your municipality is important to protect? Are there points beyond which you would not be willing to go (What is your) evaluation of the current two-tier or any modified two- tier options? Overall, is this a positive way to evolve how we deliver services? 4. Other comments? 27 Page 59 of 62 Conclusion Are the common principles that could guide collaborative initiatives? 28 Page 60 of 62 Conclusion Are there general guidelines or principles for future service delivery collaboration, such as… •“Any service delivery proposal should deliver these benefits…” or •“Any service delivery proposal should respect these boundaries…” When thinking about service delivery collaboration, what goals or principles matter to you? 29 Page 61 of 62 Toronto 145 King Street East, 2nd Floor Toronto, ON M5C 2Y7 416-864-7112 Ottawa 100 rue Queen Street, Suite 850 Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9 613-231-2630 strategycorp.com Page 62 of 62