2012-06-20 council agenda - ezt.caezt.ca › ... › documents_forms › agd › 2012 ›...

CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK COUNCIL 2010-2014

AGENDA

for the Meeting to be held on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 in the Council Chambers of the Township Hall, Hickson, Ontario at 7:00 p.m.

1. Call to order and opening remarks

2. Approve Agenda

3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

4. General Business:

a) Confirm Minutes of Previous Meeting b) Grand River Conservation Authority – June 2012 Minutes c) Upper Thames River Conservation Authority – June Newsletter d) Oxford County Transportation Strategy Summary Report e) Rural Oxford Business Retention & Expansion – Final Report and Action Plan f) County of Oxford – Insurance Review Feasibility Study Report g) County of Oxford – Request to Support Resolution re: Business Tax Capping Reform h) Oxford County Federation of Agriculture – Invitation to Farm Bus Tour

5. Delegations & Appointments:

6. Reports of Municipal Officers and Committees:

a) Conferences and Seminars b) County Council – Update & Questions c) Staff Reports – Updates & Questions d) Staff Report #PW2012-11 re: Fiber Mat Tender Results e) Staff Report #TC2012-06 – Appoint Engineer under Section 76 of the Drainage Act

7. By-laws

8. Other and Unfinished Business:

9. Legal & Personnel:

10. Confirming By-law

11. Adjourn

COUNCIL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2012 Page 147

The Council of the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock met in the Council Chambers of the Hickson Municipal Office, Hickson, Ontario at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 6, 2012.

Members present: Mayor Don MCKAY, Deputy Mayor Maureen RALPH (left at 1:00 p.m.) and Councillors Linda FULTON, Don LAZENBY, Clive LAWRY, Don MACDONALD (left at 2:10 p.m.) and Councillor Jeremy SMITH (arrived at 10:15 a.m).

Staff present: CAO Jeff Carswell, Municipal Clerk Brenda Junker, Director of Public Works & Development Dennis O’Neil, CBO John Scherer and Fire Chief Scott Alexander

Approve Agenda 1. Moved by Maureen RALPH Seconded by Clive LAWRY Resolved that Council approve the agenda for the June 6, 2012 meeting as printed and circulated, and further that the following items be added: • Correspondence from Brickyard Cemetery Board • Opposition to Dodd Zone Change Application

CARRIED.

PECUNIARY INTERESTS: None

Confirm Minutes 2. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that Council confirm the minutes of the May 16, 2012 meeting as printed and circulated.

CARRIED.

May 2012 Pay Voucher

3. Moved by Maureen RALPH Seconded by Clive LAWRY Resolved that Council adopt the April 2012 Pay Voucher in the amount of $1,907,734.73.

CARRIED.

Correspondence & Reports – No Resolutions

Grand River Conservation Authority May 2012 Minutes Notice of Rural Oxford BR+E Public Information Centre City of Woodstock re: Service Extension Resolution 2011 Capital Forecast for Bridges Notice of Public Information Centre for Hope Street Reconstruction Brickyard Cemetery Board – re: Funding Request (staff will set up meeting to discuss ongoing needs and how Township can assist) Mayors Coalition for Affordable Sustainable Accountable Policing (ASAP) – Invitation to Join Coalition

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.a

COUNCIL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2012 CONTINUED Page 148

East Zorra-Tavistock Police Services Board – May 16, 2012 Minutes Tavistock & District Recreational Facilities Board – May 28, 2012 Minutes

Correspondence & Reports – Resolutions Following

Tavistock Queen’s Park Steering Committee – June Report

Authorize TQPSC to Advertise for Project Manager

4. Moved by Clive LAWRY Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that Council approves the request of the Tavistock Queen’s Park Steering Committee to advertise for a project manager to assist with the pre-construction phase of the proposed pavilion project.

CARRIED.

Presentation of Boundary Adjustment Payment

At 10:18 a.m., Woodstock Mayor Pat Sobeski presented Council with the May 2012 Boundary Adjustment cheque in acknowledgement of an agreement that is working.

At 10:41 a.m., Jennifer Albrecht, Protective Services Co-ordinator attended Council to report on the following matters: • Staff Report re: Municipal Alcohol Policy OPP Constable Mike Hanna was present, and spoke to the proposal.

Authorize Consultation re Municipal Alcohol Policy

5. Moved by Jeremy SMITH Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that Council authorize the Protective Services Co-ordinator to consult with recreational facility managers, facility boards, recreation committees, police, insurance company and others on the possible development of a Municipal Alcohol Policy.

CARRIED.

PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION #A-4-2012 of Jutzi Holdings Inc, Pt Lot 23, Concession 6 (South Easthope) and Pt Lot 1, Plan 307 (former Village of Tavistock) At 11:00 a.m. Council, constituted as Committee of Adjustment, considered Minor Variance Application #A-4-2012 of Jutzi Holdings Inc. Planner Andrea Zietsma-Hächler presented her Planning Report #2012-142. Carol Wiebe and Larry Manuel, Planners with MHBC Planning Ltd were present for the hearing. Ms. Wiebe presented the particulars of the application on behalf of the applicants, and responded to questions of the Committee.


Approve Minor Variance Application A-4-2012 of Jutzi Holdings Inc.

6. Moved by Don LAZENBY Seconded by Jeremy SMITH Resolved that Council, constituted as Committee of Adjustment, approves Minor Variance Application #A-4-2012 of Jutzi Holdings Inc., Pt Lot 21 Conc 6 & Pt Lot 1, Plan 307 (East Zorra) for permission for relief from Table 5.18.2.1 – Parking Standards; to reduce the total number of required parking spaces from 30 to 25; and from Section 16.2 – Zone Provisions; to reduce the minimum Interior Side Yard width from 5 m (16.4 ft) to 2 m (6.6 ft) to facilitate construction of a single bay car wash as the variance requested - 1. is a minor variance from the provisions of the Township of

East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-law 2003-18; 2. is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the

land, building or structure; 3. is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the

Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Zoning By-law No. 2003-18; and

4. is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan of the County of Oxford;

And further that the approval is subject to the following conditions: That the applicant provide the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock with a recent survey indicating that the lands located on the northwest corner of Woodstock Street North and Hope Street West have been consolidated into one property.

CARRIED.

Zone Change Application ZN2-12-2 (Dodd)

7. Moved by Maureen RALPH Seconded by Don MACDONALD Resolved that Council does now adjourn to a Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act at 11:17 a.m.

CARRIED.

PUBLIC MEETING – ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION #ZN2-12-2, of Darrin & Kathy Dodd, Part Lot 20, Concession 16 (East Zorra) Andrea Zietsma-Hächler from the County of Oxford Planning Department was present to comment on her report #2012-140 on zone change application ZN2-12-2 to rezone lands from General Agriculture (A2) to a Special Agri-Business zone to permit a welding and repair garage for servicing farm vehicles and farm implements in addition to an agriculturally related excavating business. The applicants were present for the Hearing, and responded to questions of Council. A letter of opposition from neighbouring property owners was also considered at this time.


Council Reconvenes 8. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Don MACDONALD Resolved that the Public Meeting does now adjourn and Council reconvenes at 11:33 a.m.

CARRIED.

Approve ZN2-12-02, in principle

9. Moved by Clive LAWRY Seconded by Jeremy SMITH Resolved that Council approve, in principle, Zone Change Application #ZN2-12-02 of Darrin & Kathy Dodd whereby lands consisting of Eastern Part Lot 20, Concession 9 (East Zorra), municipally known as 884670 Road 88, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, are proposed to be rezoned from General Agricultural Zone (A2) to Special Agri-Business Zone (AB-sp) to permit a welding and repair garage for servicing farm vehicles and farm implements in addition to an agriculturally related excavating business, and further instruct the Oxford County Planning Department to prepare the necessary by-law.

CARRIED.

To Public Meeting 10. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that Council does now adjourn to a Public Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act at 11:41 a.m.

CARRIED.


Applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zone Change Application, Draft Plan of Subdivision – ATSA Corp

PUBLIC MEETING – APPLICATIONS FOR OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT op11-09-2; APPLICATION FOR DRAFT APPROVAL OF PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SB11-05-2 and ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION #ZN2-11-11, for ATSA Corporation Inc, Lots 1-5, 17-19, 21-22, Plan M59(East Zorra) Andrea Zietsma-Hächler from the County of Oxford Planning Department was present to comment on her report #2012-134 on applications for Official Plan Amendment, Draft Approval of Plan of Subdivision and Zone Change to facilitate the development of a residential plan of subdivision comprising 9 lots for single-detached dwellings and 1 semi-detached residential lot in the Village of Innerkip. Representatives of ATSA Corporation, as well as their Planners were present for the meeting. Neighbouring property owners Gordon Brumby, Joe Matika and Wayne Lenhardt were also present. Planner Bernie Hermsen, of MacNaughton, Hermsen, Britton, Clarkson Planning Ltd made a presentation to Council on behalf of the applicants, and answered questions of Council. Mr. Lenhardt and Mr. Brumby had questions of the planners and Council. The applicant had expressed concerns about Condition #6 of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and the requirement to fund the cost of surface asphalt in the area of the new lots. Staff responded to the concerns and questions of Council.

Council Reconvenes 11. Moved by Maureen RALPH Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that the Public Meeting does now adjourn and Council reconvenes at 12:15 p.m.

CARRIED.

Support Application OP11-09-2

12. Moved by Clive LAWRY Seconded by Don MACDONALD Resolved that Council supports the application to amend the Official Plan submitted by ATSA Corporation Inc., to redesignate the subject lands to ‘Low Density Residential’ to facilitate the development of the lands for residential purposes as the proposed amendment maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan as it pertains to residential development in the Village of Innerkip and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

CARRIED.


Defer Application ZN2-11-11

13. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that Council defer Zone Change Application ZN 2-11-11 of ATSA Corporation Inc to change the zoning of lands comprising Lots 1-5, 17-19, 21-22, Plan M-59 in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock from Village Zone (V) and Special Village Zone (V-4) to Special Residential Type 1 Zone (R1-17) and Special Residential Type 2 Zone (R2-4) until a Record of Site Condition has been obtained from the Ministry of Environment.

CARRIED.

Support Application SB11-05-2

14. Moved by Maureen RALPH Seconded by Clive LAWRY Resolved that Council supports the application submitted by ATSA Corporation Inc. for approval of a draft plan of subdivision, prepared by MHBC Planning Limited, dated August 12, 2011, as amended, comprising Lots 1-5, 17-19, 21-22, Plan M-59 in the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, subject to the conditions being met prior to final approval and plan registration.

CARRIED.

Staff Report #CAO2012-31 re: James Street Development Update

James Street, Innerkip Development

15. Moved by Jeremy SMITH Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that Council adopt the recommendation in Staff Report #CAO2012-31 dated May 31, 2012 regarding the development on James Street, Innerkip.

CARRIED.

Council broke for lunch from 12:30 – 1:15 p.m.

Conference/Seminars Councillor Smith reported on two AMO seminars he had attended recently.

At 1:20 p.m., Chief Building Official John Scherer attended Council to report on the following matters: • Building Permit Report • Status of Nutrient Management Strategies administered by

the Province and affect lag time is having on agricultural building projects

• Answer various questions of Council

May Building Permit Report

16. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Don MACDONALD Resolved that Council adopt the May 2012 Building Permit Report of C.B.O. John Scherer showing 38 permits issued at an estimated value of $2,171,479.00.

CARRIED.


PW Monthly Report At 1:30 p.m., Director of Public Works and Development Dennis O’Neil attended Council to report on the following matters: • Monthly Activity Report • Staff Report #PW2012-10 – Decew Street Reconstruction

Tender • Answer various questions of Council

Accept Viewcon Construction Tender for Decew St Reconstruction

17. Moved by Don LAZENBY Seconded by Clive LAWRY Resolved that Council accept the tender of Viewcon Construction Ltd. in the amount of $601.104.08 for the reconstruction of Decew and Maria Streets, as stated in Contract #2012-05.

CARRIED.

Staff Report #CAO2012-30 – re: Herman Property Building Removal

Authorize RFP for Removal of Buildings at 81 Jacob St, Tavistock

18. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Jeremy SMITH Resolved that Council adopt the recommendation in Staff Report #CAO2012-30 dated May 31, 2012 regarding the removal of buildings at 81 Jacob Street, Tavistock.

CARRIED.

BY-LAWS

1st & 2nd Readings 19. Moved by Clive LAWRY Seconded by Don MACDONALD Resolved that the following by-laws be read a first and second time: 2012-26 Budget & Tax Rate By-law 2012-27 By-law to Appoint Township Officials and

Committees for 2012 CARRIED.

3rd Reading 20. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that the following by-laws be read a third and final time: 2012-26 Budget & Tax Rate By-law 2012-27 By-law to Appoint Township Officials and

Committees for 2012 CARRIED.


Committee of the Whole in Camera

21. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that Council does now adjourn to Committee of the Whole, in camera, at 2:20 p.m. to consider a matter pertaining to: • personal matters about an identifiable individual, including

municipal or local board employees; • a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the

municipality or local board. CARRIED.

Council Reconvene 22. Moved by Linda FULTON Seconded by Don LAZENBY Resolved that the Committee of the Whole does now rise and Council reconvenes at 3:01 p.m.

CARRIED.

Confirming By-law 23. Moved by Clive LAWRY Seconded by Jeremy SMITH Resolved that by-law #2012-28 being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council held Wednesday, June 6, 2012 be read a first, second and third time this 6th day of June, 2012 and further that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the same and affix the corporate seal thereto.

CARRIED.

Adjourn 24. Moved by Don LAZENBY Seconded by Clive LAWRY Resolved that Council does now adjourn at 3:02 p.m.

CARRIED. Brenda Junker, Clerk Don McKay, Mayor

June 2012 • Volume 17, Number 6

GRCA General Membership

Chair Jane Mitchell

1st Vice-Chair Vic Prendergast

2nd Vice-Chair Jan d’Ailly

Townships of Amaranth, EastGarafraxa, East Luther Grand Val-ley, Melancthon and Southgate

Tom Nevills

Townships of Mapleton and Wellington North Pat Salter

Township of Centre Wellington Joanne Ross-Zuj

Town of Erin, Townships ofGuelph/Eramosa and Puslinch

John Brennan

City of GuelphBob Bell, Maggie Laidlaw

Region of WaterlooLes Armstrong, Todd Cowan,

Jan d’Ailly, Rob Deutschmann,Jean Haalboom, Ross Kelterborn,

Geoff Lorentz, Claudette Miller,Jane Mitchell, Warren Stauch

Municipality of North Perth and Township of Perth East

George Wicke

Region of Halton J. Barry Lee

City of Hamilton Jeanette Jamieson

County of Oxford Bruce Banbury

County of BrantBrian Coleman, Steve Schmitt

City of Brantford Robert Hillier, Vic Prendergast

Haldimand and Norfolk Counties Lorne Boyko, Fred Morison

GRCA Minutes

www.grandriver.ca Grand River Conservation Authority

Photo contest resultsNearly 700 photos were submitted during the

GRCA photo contest that ran from April 30, 2011to March 31, 2012.

Andrew Dietrich of Waterloo hooked the grandprize — a Nikon D90 camera — for a photo of hisfishing buddy at sunrise on the Grand River inCaledonia.

There were three category winners and threehonourable mentions. Chris Wilkinson of Rock-wood won the people category prize with a dogsledding photo taken on the Elora-Cataract Trail-way and Casey Held of Cambridge received anHonourable Mention in this category for a photoof her son taken at Laurel Creek Nature Centre.

Scott Bradford of Cambridge won the flora andfauna category for a photo of a goose flying overthe Grand River, while Michael Collins won anHonourable Mention in this category for captur-ing a deer in the Grand River as a heron flew past.Dan Baskin took home the prize for land andwaterscapes with his photo taken on the NithRiver and Eustacio Dionisio of Brantford receivedan honourable mention for capturing a Brantpark sunset.

In addition, the GRCA held 13 random drawsfor a vehicle season’s pass to the Grand Riverparks. These went to Alan Thompson, HannahBraam, Jeff Haynes, Eustacio Dionisio, RachaelDuncan, Judi Thompson, Jeffrey Milliken, LynnBoehler, Lucille Wells, Rose Versnick, EmilyLalonde, Deanna Norris and Blake Namaman.Many submissions are posted online atwww.flickr.com/photos/grandriverconservation.

New splash pad at EloraGorge to open in August

Twin City Interloc Inc. of Kitchener will con-struct the new Elora Gorge splash pad.

The splash pad will compensate for the loss ofthe old swimming pond that was removed twoyears ago due to dam failure. It will be on thesoutheast side of the park on the sports fieldacross from the Hole In the Rock washroom.

Construction is expected to begin in June and itwill open in August. There will be 18 spray headsthat mimic natural features. These will be turnedon during hot summer days for children to enjoy.It will have a recirculating water system to use lesswater.

This project was initially expected to cost$250,000 but the final tender was just over$340,000 plus HST due to several changes. Fund-ing will be provided from the conservation areascapital reserve, which will be replenished at aminimum of $50,000 annually until it is repaid.

Swimming and tubingconditions online

The GRCA in conjunction with local healthunits began a summer of water testing at its designated beaches.

Testing is done to ensure the water meets guide-lines set for swimming areas in Ontario. Beachesare posted when levels of E. coli bacteria exceedthe Ministry of Health guidelines. A posting is arecommendation that swimming should be avoid-ed or that individuals swim at their own risk.Beach testing continues throughout the summeruntil just before Labour Day weekend.

Updated information is posted onwww.grandriver.ca/Newsroom/News.cfm.

GRCA board moves toone monthly meeting

The GRCA board approved a motion to meetonly once a month instead of twice a month.

Starting in July these meetings will take place onthe fourth Friday of the month. Some specialboard meetings, such as a September budget meet-ing, will take place instead of committee meetingson the second Tuesday of the month.

Since 2011, the meetings have been shorter thanin the past. The amount of work at the two meet-ings can be accommodated in one monthly meet-ing, so there is a saving in time of the staff andboard members.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.b

This issue of GRCA Minutes was pub-lished in June 2012.

It is a summary of the May 2012 busi-ness conducted by the Grand RiverConservation Authority board and com-mittees as well as other noteworthyhappenings and topics of interest.

The Grand River Conservation Authoritywelcomes the photocopying,forwarding and distribution of GRCAMinutes.

Reports mentioned in the GRCA Min-utes are available online atwww.grandriver.ca/MeetingReports.

For information about coming events,please seewww.grandriver.ca/Calendar.

Follow the GRCA:PO Box 729, 400 Clyde Road, Cambridge, Ontario N1R 5W6 (519) 621-2761

Approval of most permits will now be inthe hands of GRCA staff. This change meetsall provincial requirements under the Con-servation Authorities Act.

Dry May weatherwith one northern storm

May was dry with precipitation for all butthe most northern part of the watershed farbelow average.

Precipitation was between 39 and 53 percent and was lowest at Shade’s Mills.

The area around Luther Marsh was anexception due to a big downpour May 3 thatdropped a month’s worth of precipitation ina few hours. Between 56 and 63 mm of rainwas recorded overnight at Luther and itcould have been as high as 90 to 100 mmbased on radar estimates and reservoir levels.

May was also about 2.8 degrees above thelong-term average temperature and hit 30degrees May 20 at Shand Dam.

Stream flows in May were below the long-term average across the watershed. Thewatershed-wide Level One that was declaredon April 24 was still in effect by early June.Level One low water condition was declaredbecause less than 70 per cent of normal pre-cipitation was recorded over the past threemonths. Water users are asked to voluntarilyreduce their consumption by 10 per cent.

Towards the end of the month, augmenta-tion from the large reservoirs accounted forclose to 50 per cent of the flow at Kitchener,20 per cent at Brantford and 25 per centbelow Guelph.

High flows in early JuneRainfall of 40 to 50 mm fell over the

entire Grand River watershed in early June,resulting in higher river and stream levelsand flows.

Recreational users of the river wereadvised to be aware of the changes and takethe necessary precautions to ensure theycarry out their activities safely.

Banks adjacent to rivers and creeks wereslippery and when combined with fast-mov-ing water, posed a potential hazard. Parentswere advised to keep their children and petsaway from fast-moving watercourses.

The GRCA took water into storage in itsmajor reservoirs on the Grand, Conestogoand Speed rivers, which helped to moderate

flow increases in the areas downstream ofthe reservoirs.

Online river flow information is availableon the GRCA website. It is updated hourly atwww.grandriver.ca/riverdata.

Fun, adventure andlearning at camps

The GRCA has increased the variety ofsummer camps on offer this year in order toencourage kids to keep learning and makingfriends in the great outdoors all summer.

A few camps are already sold out but thereare still many different types of camps at fivelocations in the Grand River watershed forkids six to 16 years old. The five locations areApps’ Mill near Brantford (five camps), Lau-rel Creek in Waterloo (14 camps), GuelphLake (10 camps), Rockwood (six camps)and Belwood Lake near Fergus (two camps).

Registration is easy and available online atwww.grandriver.eventbrite.com.

Cambridge-Paris trailimproved

New trail signs and benches were installedon the Cambridge to Paris Rail Trail thanksto $75,000 in support from The CowanFoundation.

Two interpretive signs, two benches and astone marker were unveiled in May by repre-sentatives of the Cowan Foundation, CowanInsurance Group, the GRCA and the Grand

River Conservation Foundation, the fund-raising arm of the GRCA. The stone markeris at the trail parking lot in the village ofGlen Morris, while the signs and benches arelocated just north and south of the parkinglot.

The new interpretive signs will help trailusers learn more about the environmentaland ecological significance of the trail corri-dor. One sign provides information on therare Carolinian forest found in the area.Because of the moderating effects of theGreat Lakes, this part of Southern Ontario ishome to trees, plants and animals that aremore typically found in the Carolinas.

The grand prize in the GRCA’s photo contest went to Andrew Dietrich of Waterloo. He took thispicture while fishing with his friend on the Grand River by the Caledonia Dam.

1

FYIJune 2012

Students Report on the Health of Oxbow Creek

Since 2001, the UTRCA has published environmental report cards for the 28 subwatersheds in the upper Thames River watershed. The report cards present useful and relevant data on the environmental health of each of the subwatersheds in a user friendly manner, and grade environmental factors in the categories of forest conditions and surface water quality.

The Community Education and Partnerships staff have developed a Report Card Education Program that is modeled on the UTRCA’s watershed report cards. This program is a rare and unique opportunity for senior secondary students to learn how environmental health is determined and to gain hands-on experience, producing their own environmental report cards.

Students collect and identify benthic organisms and score the results. They also monitor water conditions by measuring pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, phosphorus, and E.coli bacteria. Lastly, they conduct a visual evaluation by documenting land use impacts on aquatic habitat.

The Report Card Education Program has been a tremendous success with students and teachers. In May, students from Catholic Central High School participated in this program in the Oxbow

continues to provide support for this important program. Contact: Julie Welker, Community Partnership Specialist

four acres using the UTRCA’s seeder.

areas. The program is especially appropriate for the grade three curriculum as the students are learning about soils and plants.Contact: Karen Pugh, Resource Specialist

Volunteer with us!Several volunteers have come to the UTRCA this year to learn

assistance along the way.

hosted a student from teacher’s college.A high school co-op student was placed with the Environmentally

manage an these natural area from a hands-on point of view.

Staff use the UTRCA’s seeder to broadcast native grass seed.

CCH students collect water quality data in the Oxbow Creek.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.c

2

operations of the conservation area. A second student, from the

UTRCA staff manage and protect them.

with our Corporate Services Unit to complete her practicum.Contact: Sharon Viglianti, Human Resources

“Experience Wildwood” a Success!On Saturday, May 26th

Wildwood” event. Admission was free from 8 am to 8 pm. The

rent for a half or full day.

including four hidden by staff.

Ride” on June 16th.Contact: Paul Switzer, Assistant Superintendent, Wildwood CA

Community Forestry Wraps UpThe UTRCA’s Communities for Nature program wrapped up

th. Throughout

planted by 3600 students and community members. Contact: Karen Pugh, Resource Specialist

Top: Staff planted trees at Boler Mountain on April 21 with Boler members and community. This event was definitely one of the “high times” of the spring. Sponsored by TD Friends of the Environment. Bottom: Students from West Nissouri Public School braved very cold and blustery winds on April 23 to plant 225 native shrubs and trees around the Thorndale stormwater pond. How blustery was it? There were white caps on the pond!

Fanshawe Fun!

popular demand, garage sale.This year, the Conservation Areas Unit received approval for

Jacqui Bengough explains geocaching at Experience Wildwood.

3

for the employment program.

up and running. The splash pad is open daily from 10 am to 8 pm,

open in July and August, with lifeguards from the YMCA.A small wading pool is attached to the main swimming pool.

Contact: Steven Musclow, Superintendent, Fanshawe CA

Sobey’s and Earth Day CanadaThe UTRCA recently received good news: a grant for $6130

through the Communities for Nature program. The trees will go in

to the Thames River.Contact: Karen Pugh, Resource Specialist

Dillon Consulting On Saturday, June 9th

The species planted included hairy beardtongue, Canada wild

The planting area was on the site of an old washroom facility that was removed by the City of London years ago. The plants

bird habitat and will help serve as an interesting buffer along the Thames River.

Contact: Karen Pugh, Resource Specialist

West London Dyke Phase 1 Reconstruction Award

On May 3rd

commitment from the best in the industry. Awards were handed out for heavy, industrial, commercial and institutional construction.

Ltd., won an award.

of the UTRCA in partnership with the City of London, and cost $4 million.

system, and particularly

is an integral part of the

in the Upper Thames River watershed. The UTRCA is responsible

by agreement with the City of London.

The Min i s t ry o f Na tu ra l Resources contributed 50% to

its Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure capital repair funding

Joclyn Armistead and Sarah Anderson helped organize and run the Fanshawe Bike Rodeo on June 3.

The rebuilt West London Dyke during the December 2008 flood. Photo: Dave Colvin.

Dillon Consulting staff and family members take time out from planting for a photo.

4

program for Conservation Authorities, and the City of London contributed 50%.

With construction completed, a monitoring program was set up. Long term budget planning is underway through an annually updated 20 year Capital Repair and Replacement Plan. By mid

Contact: Rick Goldt, Supervisor, Water Control Structures

North Kettle Creek UpdateAlthough there has been little rainfall runoff to monitor this

designed to reduce rill erosion, thereby improving water quality in the local streams.

A new type of inlet was also installed as part of

instead of an upright standpipe with holes. The new design is intended to reduce the amount of sediment carried by runoff water into the subsurface

www.thamesriver.on.ca519-451-2800

Twitter @UTRCAmarketingFind us on Facebook!

More than 3,600 students participated in the Oxford Children’s Water Festival, held at Pittock Conservation Area.

watershed in May to see the new system.Contact: Craig Merkley, Conservation Services Specialist

A Fine Festival!

over 3,600 students from across Oxford County and surrounding

Contact: Linda Smith, Community Partnership Specialist

Go Fish!

Anglers must follow the conservation licence limits outlined in

On the AgendaThe following items will be presented at the UTRCA Board of

th, 2012. Board meeting minutes are posted at www.thamesriver.on.ca

Contact: Susan Shivas, Executive Assistant

UTRCA staff show a group from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada a field terrace with a new type of inlet.

Oxford Transportation Strategy

“Moving Ideas to Action”

March 21, 2012

Summary Report

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.d

Oxford Transportation Strategy“Moving Ideas to Action”

Table of Contents

Content Page

Overview 3

Oxford Priority Action Groups 4

Ride Norfolk Presentation 11

Quinte Access Presentation 23

Wellington County Presentation 35

Next Steps 40

Thank You’s 41

Appendix: List of Attendants/Pre-Registrants 42


Overview

For many years, at planning tables across Oxford County, the challenge of

transportation continually appeared. On March 21, 2012, over sixty

community stakeholders from Oxford County gathered to develop a

doable Transportation Strategy for the County.

As part of the process, three other rural counties presented their

transportation initiatives. A summary of their presentation is included in

this report. These counties were:

• Norfolk County

• Quinte County

• Wellington County

Based on ideas presented through a community service providers and

client survey, five action groups were generated and the initial steps of

strategies developed. The summaries are included in this report.

The action group areas discussed during the “Moving Ideas to Action”

event were:

• Taxi collaboration with service providers

• Rural mobile hub – a collaboration

• Coordinated services through pooling of resources

• Corporate green wheels

• Long term strategy

Each action group was able to identify a clear immediate objective, a

desired outcome, and a list of who should be at the table and

involved to see that the work continues.

Priority Action Group

Summaries


Taxi Collaboration with Service ProvidersWhat is the objective in first year?

To create a forum for discussion to bring together both taxi providers and service providers (clients) to create a more efficient service system (e.g. dispatch system)

What is the desired outcome?(what will success look like?)

To have a more efficient and coordinated service system

Who is interested in continuing to work on this action? (list names, contact info & organization)

Lila Lang - Why Wait Taxi Trish Huber - Why Wait TaxiSgt. Sam Horton - OPP Oxford (Resource for Information)Claudia Rochon – MS Society of Canada - Oxford

What is needed in order to accomplish this objective

Leadership is neededCoordinationAdministrationContract process to meet needs of both taxi and service providers and clients

What resources can your organization/ you dedicate?

OPP – statistics and information and conference roomWhy Wait Taxi – spaceTime

What are the next steps? - Develop diverse stakeholders committee for project/forum- Terms of Reference – clear object & communicate with processes with business

plan development- Establish the who and what of coordination*- Committee Selection- Leadership (nominate chair/co-chair)- Forum Organization- Accessibility needs to be reviewed

Other Pertinent Notes –Discussion

- Can be individualized contacts – i.e. Methadone contact vs CAS- Need an accessible cab- No paratransit in Tillsonburg- Whether or not County could pass by-law issue to regulate – who & what?


Rural Mobile Hub – A Collaboration

What is the objective in first year?

1) Assess the needs – what are the gaps2) Categorize who use, have and what we can build on3) Coordinator hired – look at how these gaps/services can be coordinated - hubs4) Services going out to communities when beneficial, change the mind set, decentralizing

care, what are the opportunities for mobile for using existing servicesWhat is the desired outcome?(what will success look like?)

1) Decentralize efficiency what one can decrease with respect to transportation – providing services locally OR centralized area where people can catch a ride

2) Pairing people with common needs – coordinate or cluster the needs OR Norfolk model of transportation

3) Build on current outreach services, i.e. Services provided in libraries, employment (CES, hubs) – library vans – could be used, determining where decentralizing works –where a hub of services will meet the need and then linking transportation to the hub OR blend 4 models to meet the need


Marie Keasey – Zorra TownshipLynn Beath – Oxford Public HealthBrian Stephenson – Town of TillsonburgLisa Miettinen – Oxford LibrarySandra Howe – Ingersoll Seniors’ CentreCate Melito – WACHCDeb Landon – Big Brothers Big Sisters of Ingersoll, Tillsonburg & Area



This is a cross sector opportunity: health, social services, to improve transportation in/for a specific group

1) Hire or use an existing staff person to coordinate for one year hubs that collect the information and identification and looks at coordinated plan or location (no transportation coordinator exists as part of the county resource system) this plan could pay for itself

2) May need to have sector specific discussion or tables to help identify efficiencies or think outside the box with the health needs, social services and schools

3) Start with what is doable, start small – pick a few ideas that seem doable and try it4) Use resources we already have, i.e. Norfolk teen model and those that exist in rural

communities, i.e., setting goals from communities @ Fusion Centre5) Plan of action – with the business case completed – sharing our resources can be used

more effectively – the funding secured at least and to show the case has been developed (Ontario Trillium Foundation)

6) Presentation to Oxford County for support, perhaps funding also present to other funding bodies – should the County mandate for a transportation plan to expand beyond roads? Coordinate the system or plan what/how co-op cars that people can access –

7) Could County purchase the cars – residents can book the car or more cost effective model for the transportation of people who cannot afford cars


- 13 locations through County Library- Space available at Big Brothers Big Sisters Ingersoll, Tillsonburg & Area (Ingersoll location)- Mobile Unit WACHC- Library transfer transporting supplies- Meeting space in municipal office, CAW Hall, Township Halls- Social Planning Committee Oxford – for infrastructures and staff support- Seniors Centre of Ingersoll- Some have services we could look at decentralizing – Oxford Public Health, WACHC

Rural Mobile Hub – A Collaboration continued….


Coordinate Services through Pooling of Resources


Inventory with respect to capacity on transportation (More than Blue Book)- Volunteers, vehicles, criteria, paid, fee, subsidized- Liability, shared transportation- Travel to London/Services, after hour services


- Redirect savings to core services- 24/7 services- Building capacity- Most importantly – client-focused- Expanding service to meet unmet needs- Improving service to existing clients


- Children’s Aid Society- Canadian Red Cross- Ingersoll Services for Seniors- Community Employment Services


- Client-focused needs assessment- Independent body creating the inventory (no agenda)- Lead organization- Oxford County Commitment


- CAW – funds, space, volunteers- Oxford Public Health – evaluation, advocacy at government levels- VON – space, experience, support- Canadian Red Cross - software, support, experience, volunteers, vehicles- Ingersoll Services for Seniors – space, experience, volunteers, funds- CAS, Administration Co-ordinator, volunteers, experience, expertise- SOAR – the need- Fusion – experience, space, expertise, funds- Knox Church – volunteers, space, funds


Corporate Green WheelsWhat is the objective in first year?

Car pooling info board in workplace – pro-activev. Bus for morning, not 2 other shifts, scooters, Environmental issue, reduce # cars in parking lot. Promote transportation in job ad; 1 or 2 employers in each urban centre working? Investigate other programs/best practices

What is the desired outcome? (what will success look like?)

Help fill jobs? Participation rates/ job increase, increase retention, report selling tool, “marketing for all” how to increase, computer in lobby or a transportation bulletin board in cafeteria, etc.


Darlene Robblee - Vuteq (large employer), survey to determine interestKeith Hudson – Oxford Community FoundationMark Renaud – Town of TillsonburgKelly Gilson – United Way OxfordDeb Mountenay - Oxford/Elgin/Middlesex/London Training BoardDonna Acre – Salvation Army TillsonburgKim Whitehead – SRGCommunity Employment ServicesOther Employment Agencies & 2 other (Ingersoll & Tillsonburg) large employers utilizing staffing agencies to be determined.


Willing & interestedMarketing template –positive, not repetitive, no stigma, highlight green initiative, ease of participation, etc. Liability implication needs to be determined to ensure people (companies and individual drivers) know implications.


SRG – identify company/start discussion, marketing department; promote to clients as part of job offer meetingOxford Community Foundation – environmental grant possibilityOperation Sharing / Salvation Army – promote within clients orientation package for pilot companiesVuteq HR – to promote as part of job offers/orientation

What are the next steps? Identify individuals – test caseDevelop Measurables at 1 year – use as a test to determine uptake, issues, successes, etc. to then help develop full roll-out opportunities

Other pertinentnotes/discussion

Work boot problem – lots of workers don’t have them yet require them for temp positions. Vuteq offered to trial a deposit box for old boots that can be re-cycled to new people


Long Term Strategy


User groups (Service Providers – including municipalities) meet to identify the dollars spent and services provided and opportunity for shared solution for transportation


Desired, stable and sustainable funding and operational model


- Oxford County- Lower Tier gov. – Town of Tillsonburg- Social Planning Council Oxford (David Mayberry, John Lessif)- Children’s Aid Society of Oxford- United Way Oxford- Oxford County Labour Force Strategy Group- Community Employment Services- Oxford County Newcomer Welcoming Communities Strategy

What is needed in order to accomplish this objective Commitment by the County of Oxford and the Lower Tier governments

within the County.

Groups of Service Providers working together


- Knowledge- People power

Ride Norfolk


Ride Norfolk

,

Going your way

• Waterford )

Simcoe-- Delhi (Local ..V )

Port Dover

(Simcoe •


Ride Norfolk - Overview of Need

5 “urban” centers• Simcoe• Delhi• Port Dover• Port Rowan• Waterford

several small rural centers• Langton• Houghton• Courtland• St Williams• Vittoria• Walsh• Boston• Villa Nova• Teeterville



Spinning Your Wheels Survey – 2006

Haldimand & Norfolk Service AgenciesPurpose

• determine if a lack of public transportation was a barrier to accessing services

• determine global transportation cost for agencies in Haldimand and Norfolk

• assess interest in a collaboration to create some form of transportation for clients

Key Findings• 89% of agencies identified lack of transportation as a barrier

• average annual spending by agencies to transport clients:

$1.3 – $1.9 million

• 100% of respondents would/might support a consumer transportation system



Transportation Inventory Survey – 2007

Haldimand & Norfolk Service Agencies

Purpose• compile a current transportation inventory

Key Findings• most agencies do not have their own vehicles to transport clients

• 49% of agencies use staff vehicles and pay mileage

• 46% of agencies use volunteers with their own vehicles

• most frequent client transportation was for medical appointments and social/recreation



Public Transportation Survey – 2008

Purpose• determine if Haldimand & Norfolk residents felt there was a need for public

transportation

Key Findings• 92% said there was a need for a public transportation system

• largest barriers to transportation were driving conditions, financial and not having a vehicle

• 68% of respondents said they would use a service if it was available

• most frequent uses for public transportation were social/recreational and medical appointments


Ride Norfolk - Overview of Solutions

RIDE NORFOLK – Launched October 2011



• fixed route service throughout Norfolk County

• service to all “urban” centers

• 1 bus, capacity for 16 passengers as well as 2 wheelchairs

• Fares: • $6.00 for out

of town rides• $2.00 for in

town rides

Ride Norfolk Public Transportation System



• not all centers receive service everyday

• Monday to Friday from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm

• Simcoe is used as the “Hub”

• daily service

• majority of services, shopping and other amenities

Wednesday & Friday

Tuesday & Thursday

Daily


Service changes made February 2012

• new stops added – some stops removed

• new routes and schedules

• changes to marketing strategy – Canada Post, free ride over March break

• changes based on ridership data and public feedback

• listening to public is key – Councillors do!

Ride Norfolk - Overview of Outcomes

Ridership increasing


Ride Norfolk - How we got there

Spinning Your Wheels …. Haldimand & Norfolk Rural Transportation Initiative …. Ride Norfolk

2006 to 2012

Steering Committee Membership – broad cross-section of the community:municipality, service agencies, business, service clubs, economic development agencies

Research - feasibility study, surveys, other rural areas with public transportationEducation - general public, municipality, service agencies, business, service clubs, economic development agenciesFunding - municipality, province, federal, Ontario Trillium Foundation, local foundations, service clubsModel – fixed or on-demand service; business plan including solid financial plan; marketing and advertising plan; evaluation plan; sustainability plan

Secure Service Providercontinued…


Market

Educate

Evaluate

Change Service if necessary

Market

Educate

Evaluate

REPEAT!

Ride Norfolk - How we got there

Quinte Access


Quinte Access

Mission & Vision Statement

• Mission: To provide specialized transportation service to persons with disabilities and seniors so they may participate in all of life’s activities.

• Vision: Quinte Access will be a contributing part of the movement to create a future where everyone can travel through the same door. We will do this by providing specialized transportation with dignity and respect, educating the public on accessibility issues whenever possible.


Quinte Access - In the beginning…

Quinte Access has been providing door to door transportation services for persons with disabilities since 1990. The need was recognized when a small group of people needed to get to a program or to college but lacked transportation.

The service began with one accessible van donated by the Easter Seals Society and the Belleville Rotary Club. Initially the service was totally dependent on donations from the Knights of Columbus, Kente Kiwanis, local businesses, volunteer hours and fundraising events. The undeniable need for this service was greatly apparent as the vehicle was filled to capacity before the service could even be advertised to the general public. Unfortunately, in order to expand the service to accommodate these requests there would have to be permanent funding in place.

Over the next several years a plan was formulated to secure more permanent funding and in January of 1994, Quinte Access received its incorporation as a non profit organization, and the then city of Trenton, The Townships of Murray, Sidney and Brighton became their sponsors. With the corporate sponsorship Quinte Access was now eligible for funding from the Ministry of Transportation for 50% of operating costs and 50% of capital costs. The remaining 50% was obtained through Community service clubs, volunteer hours, fundraising events, such as bingos, Nevada sales and user fares.

In April of 1994, we added our first medium sized bus which was the beginning of the expansion process including the hiring of vehicle drivers and a coordinator to oversee the operations administrative functions. This expansion and growth has resulted in our current operation of seven buses and four vans.

1994

Incorporated

1990

NEEDRecognized


Bus Replacement

Quinte Access - Expansion process…

1999 2004

Amalgamation

1998

1995 – Frankford and the Town of Brighton were added to our sponsoring

municipalities. With funds granted by the United Way we were able to provide

service for evenings, weekends and Holidays.

1996 – Purchased another bus. MTO reduced funding level from 50% to 25%. The

staff took pay cuts to cover the shortfall

1998 – MTO eliminated all funding to the service as part of the Common Sense

Revolution which involved downloading the cost for transportation from the

Provincial to Municipal level. Also that year the City of Quinte West was formed

and they took over the Province’s share of the funding.

1999–2004 – with the support of the City of Quinte West and the municipality of

Brighton we were able to maintain our then current service levels and replace two

of our existing buses

2nd BusUnited

Way

1995 1996


Quinte Access - Expansion con’t.

• 2005-2006 – With the province providing new money through the Gas Tax to the Municipalities to expand and enhance their transportation services, we were able to expand our eligibility criteria to include seniors. With this expansion, along with the reporting requirements for the provincial and municipal authorities, a computerized scheduling program, Motorcity, was implemented. An Administrator of Internal Operations was hired to implement the system and track all necessary statistical and financial data used in the necessary reports. The program Co-coordinator was now scheduling all trips using Motorcity and assisting with the day to day administrative functions along with the Administrator

• 2007 – Entered into an agreement to provide service for the Prince Edward County Transit. Also at this time a fixed route shuttle was implemented in the Trenton ward of Quinte West which provided, to our registered clients, access to transportation for shopping, appointments and social outings without having to prebook these rides. Although ridership was not very significant on this route there were many that did rely on this particular service and so as to not eliminate the shuttle discussions began on opening the service up to the public to increase ridership and offset costs.

• 2008 – we entered into an agreement with the City of Quinte West to expand the existing shuttle run to two opposite running routes and open the service to the public. This was implemented as a 6 month pilot project from Sept.15th to Mar.15th, 2009. During this time ridership statistics and feedback along with general public feedback data was collected to see if a regular transit system was a viable option. The pilot project was extended from Mar.15th 2009 to Sept.15th, 2009 to implement some route changes and operating times.

• 2009 – On September 15th, 2009 the Quinte West Council unanimously agreed to make the public transit permanent and contracted Quinte Access to provide this service.

• 2010–2011 – we saw continued growth through new client registrations and completed passenger trips both on the specialized and public services. With this continued growth and demand for specialized transportation it was realized that we had outgrown our current scheduling and dispatching software.

• In November of 2010 we were successful in obtaining funding from the Ontario Trillium Foundation in the amount of $61,800 to purchase a new up-to date system, Trapeze Novus, which utilizes GIS mapping capabilities aiding in the optimization of routes, passenger on board times and overall cost effectiveness of the service. It will also allow us to track and report more detailed statistical information utilizing report functions in the system which will be less labour intensive than some of our current data collection methods.

2010

TransitLives

2008 2009

Continued

GrowthPEC

2007

PilotProject

Gas Tax

2005-06


Quinte Access - Current Operations…

2010

4 Vans

7 Buses

3 Municipalities

Served

3 Full-time Office Staff

17 Full & Part-time

Drivers

Over 2,700 Registered

Clients


Quinte Access - Growth…

Year # of Vehicles

Registered Customers

Ridership*

1994 – 1997 2 185

1998 – 1999 3 290

2000 – 2004 4 314 9211

2005 – 2006 5 608 11075

2007 6 1484 13306

2008 9 1870 17867

2009 9 2360 18350

*Average per year


Quinte Access - Trip Comparison…

YEAR TOTAL INCREASE

2010 25007 11%

2009 22310 20%

2008 17867 26%

2007 13306 6%

2006 11969 8%

2005 10178 2%

2004 9644 4%

2003 8764 -3%

2002 9523 -3%

2001 10093 9%

2000 8035


Quinte Access - Management & Funding

Management

• Quinte Access is overseen by the Quinte Access Committee

• Committee is comprised of volunteer board members

– 2 each from sponsoring Municipalities

– 4 members-at-large

– 1 consumer of the service

• Day-to-day operations looked after by the Director of Operations and the Administrator

Funding• Fares• United Way of Quinte• The City of Quinte West• The Municipality of Brighton• The County of Prince Edward• Hastings County Social

Services• Donations, Bequests• Fundraising• Provincial Gas Tax• Ontario Trillium Foundation


Quinte Access - Service Area - Specialized


Quinte Access - Our Vehicles…


Quinte Access

VEHICLE TYPE

YEAR MAX. CAPACITY

SERVICE USE

Bus 2006 5 WC / 4 AMB Specialized



Public Backup

Bus 2007 16 Passenger & Wheelchair Accessible

Public

Bus 2007 16 Passenger & Wheelchair Accessible

Public



Van 2005 1 WC / 3 AMB Specialized




Wellington Transportation Services



Coordinating agency: The Community Resource Centre of North and Center Wellington

www.communityresourcecentre.org

Member Agencies:

• Victoria Order of Nurses

• Fergus Elora Senior Trans

• East Wellington Community Services

• Family and Children Services

• North Wellington Senior Council

Overview of Need

• The area has one urban centre, Guelph and rural townships surrounding this

• Public Transportation is available in Guelph only

• Many services are centralized and offered in Guelph, without access to a car, traveling to Guelph is complicated

• The need is demonstrated not in specific groups but by those who require transportation to a necessary service, but have no access to transportation



Transportation Solution:

• Combining the efforts of 6 agencies that provide transportation by forming a Network

• Those clients who have arranged rides in the past, continue with their process

• Those clients who do not know who to call, contact Wellington Transportation Service

• They are asked where they live, the purpose of their ride and income source

• Based on this information, the person is directed to call an agency that provides such rides or the ride is arranged using volunteers from the Community Resource Centre

• All agencies with the exception of the VON use volunteer drivers who pick clients up a their door and take them to their appointment, and return with them

• Each agency maintains their original role in the community, the change is a simplified process for those who need a ride for the first time

• The cost of 1.5 FTE transportation coordinators at what every rate you determine

• The second cost is to reimburse volunteers at $0.45 per kilometer (for the trips provided by Community Resource Centre Volunteers)



Overview of Outcomes:

• Approximately 200 rides/month

• Average cost per month is $10,000 for volunteer reimbursement

• About 2/3 of rides are for medical reasons, the others for Ontario Works, Ontario Disability appointments, court appointments, food bank visits, family visits (custody issues), starting a new job, taking a course to improve etc

• Over the last 15 months, the demand for these “falling between the cracks” drives have leveled off

• Challenges:

– Customer service provided by some volunteers

– Attendance at volunteer training

– Sorting out car seat responsibilities (driver/parent)

– Unexpected requests

– On going rides (costly)

– Ensuring safety of drivers, clients are not screened and a number of court appointments



Overview of Process to get where we are:

• Very similar to the process being taken this group

• Successfully obtained a Trillium Grant to hire a program developer who could work with the agencies providing transportation, obtain buy in, work to research and develop best practices with regards to policies and procedures, drivers manuals and training

• 18 month contract

• The network met monthly at first to work out the bugs

• Currently meet quarterly


Next Steps

• The work starting on March 21, 2012 by the community will continue. A Steering Committee will be set up and supported by the United Way Oxford and the Oxford Social Planning Committee as they begin to move forward with the initial work presented in this report.

• The Steering Committee will create priority action groups based on this initial work. As part of this work update reports will be provided and distributed widely.

If you would like to get involved please contact:

United Way Oxford

(519) 539-3851 (877) 280-1391

or [email protected]


Thanks You’s

Special thank you to the initial Steering Committee for making this day possible:

Linda Dimock, Woodstock & Area Community Health Centre

Kelly Gilson, United Way Oxford

Art Lawson, South Central Ontario Region

Cate Melito, Woodstock & Area Community Health Centre

Jeff Surridge, Community Employment Services

Natalie Surridge, Oxford County Immigration Web Portal Project

And to our consultant Maria Sánchez-Keane, Centre for Organizational Effectiveness

The Oxford Transportation Strategy “Moving Ideas to Action”

event was sponsored in part &/or supported by:

Oxford Oxford Oxford Oxford Social Planning CommitteeSocial Planning CommitteeSocial Planning CommitteeSocial Planning Committee


Appendix A – Attendance/Pre-Registrants

Shelly Ackers Quinte Access

Donna Acre Salvarion Army Tillsonburg

Bruce Banbury Township of Blandford Blenheim

Linda Bartlett Oxford County

Gary Baumbach Woodstock Public Library

Lynn Beath Oxford County

Lorna Boratto Oxford Public Health

Dan Borthwick CAW Local 88

Rebecca Breedon Conestoga College

Jeff Carswell Township of East Zorra Tavistock

Tim Clark OPP

Kelley Coulter Town of Tillsonburg

Christina Crawford Operation Sharing

Janice Cunningham Canadian Cancer Society

Harold deHaan City of Woodstock

Kim DeKlein OMAFRA

Susan DeRoo Tillsonburg Multi Service Centre

Linda Dimock WACHC

Natasha Geerlinks Homestead Christina Care Centre

Kelly Gilson United Way Oxford

Julie Gilvesy Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital

Mike Gorgey Oxford County

Diana Handsaeme Stonebridge Community Services

Pete Haywood Oxford County

Sam Horton OPP

Sandra Howe Ingersoll Seniors Centre

Particia Hubber Why Wait Taxi

Keith Hudson Oxford Community Foundation

Marie Keasey Zorra Township

Robin Kish VON Oxford

Deb Landon Big Brothers Big Sisters of Ingersoll, Tillsonburg & Area

Shannon Lang WDDS

Lyla Lang Why Wait Taxi

Art Lawson SCOR

John Lessif Town of Tillsonburg

continued….


Appendix A – Attendance/Pre-Registrants

Giselle Lutfallah CAS - Oxford

Ron MacKinnon Community Resource Centre of North & Centre Wellington

Rhonda Manning Oxford County

Nadyne Mattiss Quinte Access

David Mayberry Township of South West Oxford

Dave McKie Kendall Cab

Gene McLaren Town of Ingersoll

Mark McLennan Knox Church

Kristy McQueen VON Oxford

Cate Melito WACHA

Mary Metheral WDDS

Lisa Miettinen Oxford Public Library

Cheryl Moore Woodstock General Hospital

Rob Neil CAS - Oxford

Wendy Palen Ingersoll Seniors Centre

Claudia Rachon MS Oxford

Mark Renaud Town of Tillsonburg

Tracy Rhea Operation Sharing

Ken Riley South Gate Centre

Darlene Robblee Vuteq

Louisa Russell SRG

Jane Ryder Ride Norfolk

Linda Smith CAW Local 88

Jason Smith Fusion Youth Centre

Brad Smith Ride Norfolk

Jessie Smith Salvation Army Tillsonburg

Jeff Surridge CES

Natalie Surridge CES

Terry Toews Sharpe Bus Line

Brent Tree CAM Local 88

Marion Wearn Township of Blandford Blenheim

Kim Whitehead SRG

Elaine Wilson Canadian Red Cross

June 2012

Rural Oxford Business Retention and Expansion Final Report and Action Plan

2012

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.e

i

BR+E Final Report and Action Plan

Table of Contents BR+E Background ............................................................................... 1

Objectives ...................................................................................... 1

Project Coordination ...................................................................... 1

Profile of Businesses Surveyed .......................................................... 4

BR+E Survey Results ........................................................................... 6

Business Climate ............................................................................ 6

Future Plans ................................................................................... 7

Business Development ................................................................... 7

Business Development – Markets ................................................. 8

Workforce Development ............................................................... 8

Business Development – Community ............................................ 9

Community Questions ................................................................. 10

Addressing Business Concerns ......................................................... 11

Priority Issues ................................................................................... 12

Recommended Implementation Action Plan ................................... 16

WRITTEN BY: Karen Nelson Hamilton – Business Retention and Expansion Coordinator PROJECT FUNDERS: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs – Rural Economic Development Program Oxford Small Business Support Centre Township of Blandford-Blenheim Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Township of Norwich Township of South-West Oxford Township of Zorra ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: We would like to thank all the volunteers for their dedication and time to the project (see pages 2-3 for lists of all those involved), as well as all the businesses that participated in the project. We would also like to thank the staff at the five township offices for their assistance throughout the project, as well as Information Oxford for assisting with the business list.

1


BR+E Background

The BR+E project is a volunteer-driven, community based economic development tool designed to enhance local businesses and economic prosperity. It is community based involving various stakeholders within the community, including government, business, non-profit agencies and citizens, many of whom volunteer their time to contribute to the project. The program works to improve the competitiveness of local businesses by addressing their concerns and needs through a confidential interview process. The interview process is a structured visitation program that includes a survey conducted by volunteers to identify issues and opportunities. The analysis of the survey results is used to develop a series of strategic actions that will assist in addressing the concerns indicated within the survey. The overall goals of conducting a BR+E project are as follows:

Address urgent business issues

Improve and grow the relationships between local businesses and the community

Retention of businesses and jobs

Improvement of business and community competitiveness The project works by using a four stage process. The first stage involves the project planning and survey phase, the second involves responding to business concerns, and third involves entering and analyzing data from the surveys. The final stage involves creating action plans, and introducing the final report, along with the plans to the community. Implementation of the plans will be ongoing.

Objectives

The Rural Oxford BR+E Leadership Team developed specific recommendations for the Rural Oxford BR+E. These are as follows: Short Term Objectives:

Increase the communication and sharing of resources between the rural municipalities

Improve the relationships between the municipalities and local businesses and organizations

Identify and address the immediate concerns of, as well as opportunities, from local businesses

Long Term Objectives

Increase community capacity for economic development

Promote local business and community competitiveness

Increase business development and job creation

Create a business friendly environment to promote business growth

Project Coordination

The Business Retention and Expansion project was driven by the support of municipal staff members and community stakeholders. These volunteers were represented on the Leadership Team, Task Force Team, and as Volunteer Visitors to complete surveys.

2


Leadership Team: The Leadership team provided overall management decisions for the project, as well as suggestions and input into all areas of the project. This included providing a list of people for the Task Force Team, survey development, community engagement and overall project support. Members of the Leadership Team included: Fran Bell

CAO of Blandford-Blenheim

Jeff Carswell

CAO of East Zorra-Tavistock

Richard Fanning

Oxford Small Business Support Centre

Michael Graves

CAO of Norwich

Mary Ellen Greb

CAO of South-West Oxford

Geoff Gray

Salford Farm Machinery

Don MacLeod CAO of Zorra Task Force Team The Task Force team included a broad base of community leaders that was put in place to provide support to the BR+E project. Along with providing direction, advice and assistance throughout the project, the team was instrumental in gathering resources for distribution to businesses as well as picking out key issues from the survey results. In addition, the Task Force was the main group to

identify actions which should be carried forward as part of a strategic plan. The members of the Task Force team included: Mark Cassidy

Freelance Project Coordinator

Keith Cosby

Thamesford Taking Action Group

Karen Cowan

AgTech GIS

Dianne Harnett

Township of South-West Oxford

Ted Hunt

Resident

Deb Mountenay

Elgin Middlesex Oxford Workforce Planning Board

Arthur Lawson

SCOR Economic Development Corporation

In addition, other stakeholders participated in the Task Force Retreat: Dyann Birtch

Birtch Farms

Ian Heikoop

Norwich Chamber of Commerce

Sue Hilborn

Red Barn Berries & Veggies

David Mayberry

Mayor, Township of South-West Oxford

June Nussey

Oxford County Federation of Agriculture

3


Volunteer Visitors Volunteer Visitors were the heart of the BR+E project, as they assisted in gathering information from businesses and represented the project to the business community. Training was provided by OMAFRA and the Project Coordinator to all Volunteer Visitors. This training ensured all volunteers were properly equipped to conduct the survey with the local businesses. The Volunteer Visitors included: Keith Cosby

Mark Hacon

Keith Hamilton

Alicia Kostyria

Erin Panek

Peter Standish

OMAFRA Consultants As the project is driven and partially funded by OMAFRA, two consultants from the Ministry provided assistance throughout the project: Kim DeKlein

Vicki Luke

4


Profile of Businesses Surveyed

The Rural Oxford BR+E project conducted a cross-sector survey to ensure that data was gathered from a variety of business types. Businesses were randomly selected to be interviewed by project staff and volunteers, with a goal of 40 visits to be completed per Township. The interviews took place between November 2011 and March 2012, with over 225 participating.

Completed Surveys by Township

Blandford-Blenheim 43

East Zorra-Tavistock 45

Norwich 43

South-West Oxford 48

Zorra 46

Total 225

As the project aimed to collect information from all business types, every effort was made to ensure that feedback was obtained from businesses in all different industries. The following table presents the actual number of surveys completed per sector, as well as the total percentage of businesses surveyed per sector.

NAICS Sector #

surveyed

% of total sector

surveyed Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

19 12%

Construction 28 18%

Manufacturing 26 29%

Whole Sale Trade 14 20%

Retail Trade 33 19%

Transportation and Warehousing

12 24%

Finance and Insurance 11 31%

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

9 29%

Professional, Scientific and Professional Services

14 20%

Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services

3 8%

Health Care and Social Assistance

7 30%

Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

10 22%

Accommodation and Food 17 29%

Other Services 22 26%

5


The majority of the businesses that were surveyed identified themselves as a corporation. This was followed by sole proprietorship and partnership.

Type of Business #

Surveyed

Corporation 219

Sole Proprietorship 88

Partnership 49

Home-based business 31

Franchise 4

Co-operative 4

Limited Liability Partnership 20

Limited Liability Corporation 12

Non-Profit Corporation 2

Other 7

One third of the businesses in the study have been in operation for 11 to 25 years within their Township. The only new businesses (less than one year in operation) that were surveyed were located in Blandford-Blenheim and Zorra. Number of Years in Business

Less than 1 3%

1 to 3 7%

4 to 10 17%

11 to 2533%

26 to 3515%

Over 3525%

Nearly half (44%) of the businesses surveyed have less than 5 employees, and a quarter have between 5 and 9 employees. Only 3% of the businesses surveyed had 100 employees or more. The majority of businesses surveyed hired full time permanent employees. Many businesses also had permanent part-time employees, most notably in East Zorra-Tavistock. All five Townships hired many seasonal employees, with the most being in East Zorra-Tavistock (307 positions) and Blandford-Blenheim (112 positions).

6


BR+E Survey Results

The following presents a summary of the results of the BR+E survey for the five townships. The results were reviwed during the Task Force Retreat, where it was noted that the majority of the results were positive, and that businesses tend to enjoy Rural Oxford. However, there was a lot of feedback on how business can be improved. Business Climate

On average between the five Townships, 49% of the businesses felt that the business climate was good, while 36% thought it was fair. When asked if their attitude has changed in the past 3 years about doing business in their community, the majority of those surveyed (54%) reported that there was no change, and they were still positive. However, this response varied by Township.

In the past 3 years has your attitude about doing business in this community changed?

Blandford-Blenheim

East Zorra-Tavistock

Norwich SWOX Zorra

Yes, more positive 12% 20% 19% 13% 33%

Yes, more negative 18% 27% 21% 28% 15%

No change, still positive 65% 51% 56% 57% 41%

No change, still negative 5% 2% 5% 2% 11%

Businesses were asked to offer specific recommendations to improve the local business climate. The most frequent responses included: the need for a ‘buy local’ campaign which would market existing Township services to the population; the need to ease regulations to allow for a quicker and more efficient expansion process; and the need for incentives for businesses to stay/expand in Rural Oxford. The majority of businesses have not accessed any federal programs of services within the past two years, with the exception of East Zorra-Tavistock, where 52% accessed a government program. Just over half of the businesses surveyed (51%) in South-West Oxford and nearly half (45%) in East Zorra-Tavistock are planning to access government programs or services. There were few businesses in the remaining Townships planning to access any programs of services provided by the two levels of government.

7


Future Plans

A series of questions were asked to assess the future plans of businesses surveyed within Rural Oxford. The first question asked what the plans for the business would be over the next 3 years. What would best describe your plans over the next 3 years?

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Relocate

Expanding

Closing

Remain the same

Downsize

Number of Businesses

Of those businesses planning to expand, the majority will see an increase in: work force, floor space, services for customers, investment in equipment and technology and demand for skills training. Nearly half (44%) are experiencing difficulties with these changes.

Business Development

Generally, the businesses in Rural Oxford do not have barriers with relation to information technology/internet. Those that do have barriers reported it to be primarily in relation to speed, cost and access. The businesses were asked if they would be interested in working cooperatively with other businesses, to which their responses varied: Are you interested in working cooperatively with other businesses to pursue any of the following?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Joint product purchasing

Joint marketing

Joint Training

Collaboration/networking

Service-buyer-supplier network

None

8


Business Development – Markets

The majority of businesses are planning sales growth within the year at their company. Most businesses expected the growth to be under 10%, while many expected it to be between 10-24%. Just over 60 businesses expected no growth, and a few expected to decline (based on downsizing or closing). What is the projected sales growth at this company?

0 20 40 60 80 100

Declining

0%

1-9%

10-24%

25-49%

50-99%

100% or higher


For those that felt they would increase in sales, reasons included: new products and services, increased advertising, increased demand. For the business that indicated a decline or no change, reasons included: high cost of wages, high taxes, no plans to expand Market research was important to many of the businesses surveyed, as 70% reported receiving market research information from a variety of sources.

Workforce Development

Over the next 3 years, the majority of the businesses surveyed expect that their number of employees will either increase or remain the same. Of those planning to increase in the number of employees, the majority expected this increase to be by 1-5 employees. In the next 3 years, will your number of employees increase, decrease or remain the same?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Increase Decrease Remain thesame

Do not know

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f B

usi

ne

sse

s

Businesses reported that the factors responsible for the change in employees included: technological changes, an increase or decrease in sales, entering a new market, and renovation or expansion of their business.

9


Nearly half (45%) of the businesses surveyed reported that they had difficulties hiring. The hiring challenges reported by businesses varied. The most common response was a lack of specific skills or training, followed by a lack of motivation or poor attitude. How would you describe your hiring challenges?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Too few applicants

Lack of specific skills or training

Lack of general skills

Lack of people skills

Lack of motivation/poor attitude

Lack of relevant experience

% of businesses

Business Development – Community The businesses surveyed felt that there were many advantages to doing business in Rural Oxford. The most common advantages reported included:

Proximity to major roads

Lower costs

Small/friendly community

Loyal customers While many advantages were reported, it was also felt that there were some disadvantages as well. The most common disadvantages included:

Small/rural location, resulting in limited customer base

Too close to urban areas, resulting in increased competition

Regulations The businesses surveyed were asked if the community or local government could provide assistance to their business. Nearly one fifth of businesses indicated that marketing seminars would be a benefit to them. Similarly, many businesses also noted joint advertising and marketing would support their business. Businesses were asked to describe the most significant change, positive or negative, that they have witnessed within their community in the past five years. Positive changes included: Toyota/CAMI plant, new hospital, agricultural industry, and housing growth. Negative changes included school closures, lack of jobs, declining population, and increased regulations.

10


Community Questions Businesses were asked what they believed to be the most important drivers of the economy in Oxford County over the next five years. The major responses included the automotive and agricultural industries. Businesses noted the major concerns they have with doing business in the area in the future. The most frequent concerns included: competition, hours of operation, increased regulations, increased taxes and government interference. The majority of businesses indicated that they currently support local sports leagues/associations and community organizations. Most do this through financial contributions, but others also donate prizes and/or volunteer their time. Finally, businesses were asked to rank what they believed to be the economic development priorities for their Township. The following shows the results for each Township.

Blandford-Blenheim


Norwich South-West Oxford Zorra

1. Support for farm community

1. Small business support 1. Health care services 1.Small business support 1. Support for farm community

2. Small business support 2. Mainstreet development

2. Attracting visitors 2. Support for farm community

2. Small business support

3. Community infrastructure/Development of recreational facilities


3. Small business support 3. Community infrastructure

3. Community infrastructure

11


Addressing Business Concerns

In April of 2012, the Task Force Team provided the Project Coordinator with information that may be beneficial to some businesses. This was assembled to create a resource list, and was sent out to businesses that requested information. From the survey process, six businesses were identified as having a ‘red flag’ concern. Each business was contacted to discuss the concern further, which was then directed to the appropriate person. Of these businesses:

3 were directed to another organization for further assistance

1 had already began the process of receiving assistance

1 had an increase in business

1 business is still unsure of its’ future, but is in talks with the municipality.

12


Priority Issues

This section presents an overview of the first group of priority actions identified at the Task Force Retreat.

1. BUSINESS NETWORKING

There is a need for a business network or association, interest to collaborate/network with other businesses, no forum for gathering.

There is a need identified by businesses for more business networking opportunities in order to collaborate/network with other businesses as some identified that they felt there was no forum for gathering. The businesses also felt there were not many incentives, benefits, and supports for business, so there is also a need for enhanced communications about what is available for businesses (i.e. business support centre, Chamber, BIA). There were also difficulties noted in terms of financing for expansion. What assistance, if any, could the community, local government or economic development organizations give to support your business?

Assistance #

Marketing seminars 43

Access to capital seminars 31

Trade shows 42

Business networking sessions 55

Export development programs and services 20

Joint advertising and marketing 62

Attraction of related supply & services businesses 37

Workforce planning, employee training and attraction 41

Identification of opportunities for shared use of buildings, infrastructure etc.

32

Productivity improvement workshops 23

Website development 54

E-marketing 52

“Local business stakeholders across Oxford need to be linked”

13


2. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Businesses feel that that there are too many regulations and a complicated approval process.

There is a perception by business that there are too many regulations and that there is a complicated approval process. There was dissatisfaction with planning, zoning, and building inspections.

Many businesses indicated throughout the survey that they had experienced difficulties with approval processes through various municipal and provincial departments. They noted that often the process was confusing, time consuming, and often led to a delay or halt in the expansion of the business.

What is your level of satisfaction with the following service?

Service No Response No contact very dissatisfied somewhat dissatisfied

somewhat satisfied

very satisfied

Planning, zoning, building 4% 13% 18% 25% 27% 13%

“Cut red tape and approval process to make it easier for existing and new businesses”

14


3. JOBS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND NEWCOMERS There is an issue finding people to fill jobs, and finding jobs for those under 30 and newcomers.

There is a need for businesses to find the right people with the right skills that the businesses need while at the same time, there is a need to find job opportunities for those under 30 (to prevent youth out-migration) as well as for newcomers (with declining rural population trends) in Oxford County.

On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means poorly and 5 means ideally, how well positioned is your community to retain and attract employees under the age of thirty?

Scale %

1 11%

2 30%

3 21%

4 20%

5 6%

*12% provided no response

4. APPEALING COMMUNITIES There is a need for more appealing downtowns, villages and communities.

There is a need to create more appealing downtown(s) and strengthen the villages and community centres. Businesses noted that façade improvement was needed in some core areas, as well as brownfield development and new store ownership to decrease unused spaces. It was felt that this would encourage local shopping by residents, and provide an attractive community for new businesses.

“People will stay if they get jobs”

15


5. PROMOTE LOCAL SHOPPING

Ensure basic goods and services are retained in rural Oxford.

There is a need to ensure the basic services and goods are retained in rural Oxford and for a “Buy Local” campaign to encourage everyone to support these local businesses. The businesses surveyed frequently commented on the need to encourage local residents to buy local, as they currently face competition from the surrounding urban areas. Additionally, many businesses noted that many communities are missing basic goods and services, such as a grocery store or gas station.

SECONDARY ISSUES

The following is a list of secondary issues that were identified, but were not considered to be a ‘top priority”:

Closing of schools and churches in rural areas Competition with larger chains/urban areas

Toyota and CAMI drive wages up (costing other businesses more) but are good for the economy

Increasingly negative feelings about doing business in the Township

Parking issues Availability of properly zoned land

Local proactive business recruitment No interest in accessing Government programs

Dissatisfaction with public utilities Lack of transportation

Business climate rated as “fair” by many Not enough jobs for immigrants/newcomers

There are opportunities missed with the large markets nearby

Primary recruitment method of businesses is cold calling, so there is concern over whether they will be able to find the skills needed using this method in the future

“Small towns need help to draw in

people”

“More advertising [is needed] to

support local businesses”

16


Recommended Implementation Action Plan

Issue 1: Need to collaborate and network among businesses Overall Strategy: Provide information and opportunities for business networking in Oxford

Objective(s) Action Steps Lead(s) and

Partners Timelines Resources Evaluation Outcomes

Create a new business network in Oxford (such as a Chamber, BIA, or association) which could include businesses and farms from every township

Increase collaboration between Oxford business organizations by calling a meeting to discuss collaboration Encourage rural businesses to join a business network by promoting networking events and opportunities to become members of groups Set up a joint card to attend any Oxford Chamber meetings

Norwich Chamber President/Chair volunteered to provide leadership to call this meeting Existing business organizations

End of 2012

Expand existing resources Increase membership fees to fund expansion initiatives

Business organization sustainability and membership

Increased activities and collaboration between businesses Increased local buying Improved opportunity for business advocacy with a rural focus Increased communication about business support programs and professional development opportunities

17


Issue 2: Businesses feel there are too many regulations and complicated approval processes Overall Strategy: Provide more support to business by reviewing regulations and processes, making improvements to these and then educating businesses about processes and steps involved.



Identify which issues relate to the County and which to the lower tier municipalities Provide more economic development support to businesses including simplifying the approval process. Clarify role of business support centers to help educate businesses

Township Staff to meet with each other and the County Planning Staff Make revisions to processes as necessary Provide staff contacts for each township and the County to businesses regarding approvals and regulations

Each Township as a lead, with Oxford County as a partner

Fall 2012

Staff (county and municipal)

Feedback from businesses

Businesses are more informed about the processes Quicker approval times More business satisfaction on processes

18


Issue 3: Finding qualified people needed for jobs and finding jobs for those 30 years and under as well as for newcomers Overall Strategy: Work with and support existing Oxford Labour Force Development Strategy Implementation



Check Oxford Workforce Development Strategy to ensure BR+E issues are covered in current plan

Look more closely at BR+E results and getting interpretation with respect to this issue Support the implementation of the Oxford Workforce Development Strategy Oxford Labour Force Strategy posted on municipal sites with links to services

Elgin Middlesex Oxford Workforce Planning Board Community Employment Services – Jeff Surridge, Chair of the Oxford Workforce Development Committee Townships

June 2012 Refer to Oxford Labour Force Development Strategy

Partners and resources identified in workforce strategy

Issue addressed in strategy or BR+E strategy altered to address Strategies implemented

More jobs are getting filled (specifically with local people)

19


Issue 4: There is a need for more appealing downtowns, villages and communities Overall Strategy: Explore implementation of Community Improvement Plans (CIP) in townships who have towns and villages as well as engage volunteers to help through FICE1 programs


Partners

Timelines

Resources Evaluation Outcomes

Explore CIP Best Practices from other communities Establish a working group to set up CIP’s where appropriate Engage volunteers to help through First Impression Community Exchange (FICE) where interest Create and implement a strategy to improve community attractiveness

Investigate incentives for businesses Identify needs with area property owners and business tenants Provide FICE information to those interested Train and complete community exchange Implement strategies to address findings

Michael Graves, Norwich – provide best practices Township and business organization(s) Township and business organization(s)

Dec 2012 Jan/Feb 2013 Summer 2013

Funding (from municipalities, BIAs, grants (i.e. accessibility funding) OMAFRA

Success achieved in other communities Uptake by businesses with CIP program

Well informed to decide on Oxford CIPs New CIP program(s) More appealing businesses More appealing communities

1 FICE – First Impressions Community Exchange Program. This program is run by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

20


Issue 5: Ensure basic goods and services are retained in rural Oxford Overall Strategy: Establish a Buy Local campaign

Activity Tasks/Steps Lead(s) and

Partners

Timelines

Resources Evaluation Outcomes

Research what type of campaign is wanted by local businesses Create a ‘buy local’ working group Establish a marketing campaign and implement Create a business listing/directory to be posted on each Township website

Create a web-based survey for businesses Create a focus group to gather info Contact key stakeholders for invitation Develop budget and find funds Create strategy, marketing materials and implement

BIA/Chambers Business, business organizations, Tourism Oxford and townships Townships

Research completed 6 months after BR+E is completed Begin within 6 months of BR+E completion Completed by July 2013

Staff time, online resources, media advertisements

Baseline data Business satisfaction in terms of increased sales and more traffic

Information on what businesses want from a campaign Working group committed to ensuring effective buy local strategies Increased business over time

21


For more information on the Rural Oxford Business Retention and Expansion Project, please visit:

www.roed.ca Or contact: Township of Blandford-Blenheim

Township of East Zorra-Tavistock

Township of Norwich

Township of South-West Oxford

Township of Zorra

BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION

Presentation of Project Results 13/06/2012

0

RURAL OXFORD COUNTY

Welcome! 1

Cartoon by Daniel Yowell

-

v

SUSINE:SS RETENTION AND EXI~ANSION

Agenda 2

Project Background Survey Background Company Background

Survey Results Data Highlights Priority Issues Secondary Issues

Action Plans

Project Background 3

Background 4

Began July 2011

Public Meeting and Volunteer Training September/October 2011

Survey Period – November 11 to March 12

Task Force Retreat – May 2012

Survey Background 5

Survey Background 6

Completed Surveys

Blandford-Blenheim 43

East Zorra-Tavistock 45

Norwich 43

South-West Oxford 48

Zorra 46

Total 225

Survey Background 7

NAICS Sector # surveyed

% of sector surveyed

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 19 12% Construction 28 18% Manufacturing 26 29% Whole Sale Trade 14 20% Retail Trade 33 19% Transportation and Warehousing 12 24% Finance and Insurance 11 31% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 9 29% Professional, Scientific and Professional Services 14 20% Administrative and Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services 3 8% Health Care and Social Assistance 7 30% Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 10 22% Accommodation and Food 17 29% Other Services 22 26%

Survey Background 8

BB EZT NOR SWOX ZOR Corporation 27 28 27 30 25

Sole Proprietorship 9 7 11 8 17

Partnership 6 1 6 10 5

Home-based business

3 4 2 4 6

Franchise 0 0 0 0 2

Co-operative 1 1 1 0 0

Limited Liability Partnership 1 11 3 1 0

Limited Liability Corporation 1 1 0 5 0

Non-Profit Corporation 1 1 0 0 0

Other 1 4 0 0 1

Type of Business

Survey Background 9

BB EZT NOR SWOX ZOR

Less than 1 5 0 0 0 1

1 to 3 2 3 4 1 6

4 to 10 7 8 9 6 7

11 to 25 18 11 15 18 13

26 to 35 1 9 8 9 7

Over 35 10 14 7 13 12

Years in Operation

Survey Background 10

BB EZT NOR SWOX ZOR

1 -4 19 18 18 17 27

5 - 9 12 9 10 18 8

10 - 14 3 3 6 4 3

15 - 19 3 3 0 0 3

20 - 29 3 3 3 4 3

30 - 49 1 4 2 1 0

50 - 99 1 2 4 2 0

100 - 299 1 2 0 1 1

300 or more

0 1 0 0 1

Number of Employees

Survey Background 11

BB EZT NOR SWOX ZOR

Permanent Full-time 340 671 377 551 895

Permanent Part-time

69 224 77 56 53

Temporary 2 75 2 6 2

Seasonal Spring 6 102 16 15 0

Seasonal Summer 15 97 63 27 55

Seasonal Fall 76 108 3 7 0

Seasonal Winter 15 0 0 30 0

Contracted Employees

11 4 60 1 9

Co-op Students 0 2 0 8 1

Type of Employment

Survey Results Priority Issues Secondary Issues

Results 12

Business Climate 13

Nearly all businesses rated the business climate as ‘good’ or ‘fair’.

Businesses would like to see more relaxed regulations and a ‘shop local’ strategy

Blandford-Blenheim

East Zorra-Tavistock Norwich SWOX Zorra

Yes, more positive 12% 20% 19% 13% 33% Yes, more negative 18% 27% 21% 28% 15% No change, still positive 65% 51% 56% 57% 41% No change, still negative 5% 2% 5% 2% 11%

In the past 3 years has your attitude about doing business in this community changed?

Future Plans 14

Expanding businesses expect to an increase in: workforce, floor space and services for customers.

Nearly half (44%) of businesses are experiencing difficulties with these changes.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Relocate

Expanding

Closing

Remain the same

Downsize


What would best describe your plans over the next 3 years?

Business Development 15

Most businesses do not have barriers in relation to information technology/ internet.

Over half of the businesses are interested in working cooperatively with other businesses.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Joint product purchasing

Joint marketing

Joint Training

Collaboration/networking

Service-buyer-supplier network

None

Are you interested in working cooperatively with other businesses to pursue any of the following?

Markets 16

0 20 40 60 80 100

Declining

0%

1-9%

10-24%

25-49%

50-99%

100% or higher


What is the projected sales growth at this company? The majority of businesses are planning sales growth within the year at their company.

70% of businesses reported receiving market research.

Workforce Development 17

Over 40% of businesses expect their number of employees will increase.

45% of businesses reported difficulties hiring new employees.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Too few applicants

Lack of specific skills or training

Lack of general skills

Lack of people skills

Lack of motivation/poor attitude

Lack of relevant experience

% of businesses

How would you describe your hiring challenges?

Community Development

Advantages: Proximity to major roads Lower costs Small/friendly community Loyal customers

Disadvantages: Small/rural location Too close to urban

areas Regulations

18

29/09/2011

What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing business in Rural Oxford?

Community Questions 19

29/09/2011

Blandford-Blenheim


Norwich South-West Oxford Zorra


1. Small business support 1. Health care services 1.Small business support 1. Support for farm community

2. Small business support 2. Mainstreet development

2. Attracting visitors 2. Support for farm community

2. Small business support

3. Community infrastructure/Development of recreational facilities


3. Small business support 3. Community infrastructure

3. Community infrastructure

What should be the economic development priorities for the Township?

Priority Issues 20

Decided at the Task Force Retreat Participants were given the survey results, and asked to

identify what they saw as the major issues Issues were voted on to determine the top priority issues

and secondary issues for further work.

Priority Issues 21

BUSINESS NETWORKING There is a need for a business network or association,

interest to collaborate/network with other businesses, no forum for gathering.

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Businesses feel that that there are too many regulations and

a complicated approval process. “Cut red tape and approval process to make it easier for existing and

new businesses” – Business owner

Priority Issues 22

JOBS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND NEWCOMMERS There is an issue finding people to fill jobs, and finding jobs

for those under 30 and newcomers.

“People will stay if they get jobs” – Business owner

APPEALING COMMUNITIES There is a need for more appealing downtowns, villages

and communities.

Priority Issues 23

PROMOTE LOCAL SHOPPING Ensure basic goods and services are retained in rural

Oxford.

“Small towns need help to draw people in” – Business owner

Secondary Issues 24

Closing of schools and churches in rural areas

Competition with larger chains/urban areas

Toyota and CAMI drive wages up (costing other businesses more) but are good for the economy

Increasingly negative feelings about doing business in the Township

Parking issues Availability of properly zoned land

Local proactive business recruitment No interest in accessing Government programs

Dissatisfaction with public utilities Lack of transportation

Business climate rated as “fair” by many Not enough jobs for immigrants/newcomers

There are opportunities missed with the large markets nearby

Primary recruitment method of businesses is cold calling, so there is concern over whether they will be able to find the skills needed using this method in the future

Action Plans 25

Issue 1: Need to collaborate and network among businesses

Objective: Create a new business

network in Oxford (such as a Chamber, BIA, or association) which could include businesses and farms from every township

Actions: Increase collaborations

between businesses

Promote networking events

Set up shared Oxford Chamber program

26

Overall Strategy: Provide information and opportunities for business networking in Oxford

Issue 2: Businesses feel there are too many regulations and complicated approval processes

Objectives: Issue identification

Provide more economic development support, including simplifying the approval process

Clarify role of business support centres

Actions: Township staff to meet with

each other and County staff

Make revisions to processes as necessary

Provide contacts to businesses regarding approvals and regulations

27

Overall Strategy: Provide more support to business by reviewing regulations and processes, making improvements to these and then educating businesses about processes and steps involved.

Issue 3: Finding qualified people needed for jobs and finding jobs for those 30 years and under and newcomers

Objectives: Check Oxford Workforce

Development Strategy to ensure BR+E issues are covered in current plan

Actions: Look more closely at BR+E

results Support the implementation

of the Oxford Workforce Development Strategy

Oxford Labour Force Strategy posted on municipal sites with links to services

28

Overall Strategy: Work with and support existing Oxford Labour Force Development Strategy Implementation

Issue 4: There is a need for more appealing downtowns, villages and communities

Objectives: Explore CIP Best Practices from

other communities Establish a working group to set

up CIP’s where appropriate Engage volunteers to help

through First Impression Community Exchange (FICE)

Create and implement a strategy to improve community attractiveness

Actions:

Investigate incentives for businesses

Identify needs with area property owners and business tenants

Provide FICE information to those interested

Implement strategies to address findings

29

Overall Strategy: Explore implementation of Community Improvement Plans (CIP) in townships who have towns and villages as well as engage volunteers to help through FICE programs

Issue 5: Ensure basic goods and services are retained in rural Oxford

Objectives: Research what type of

campaign is wanted by local businesses

Create a ‘buy local’ working group

Establish a marketing campaign and implement

Create a business listing/directory to be posted on each Township website

Actions: Create a web-based survey

for businesses Create a focus group to

gather info Contact key stakeholders for

invitation Develop budget and find

funds Create strategy, marketing

materials and implement

30

Overall Strategy: Establish a Buy Local campaign

32

Volunteers Volunteer Visitors Task Force Team Task Force Retreat Participants

Township Staff and Stakeholder Groups Survey Participants

Thank you! 33

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT YOUR LOCAL TOWNSHIP OFFICE

1

Jeff Carswell

From: Lynn BuchnerSent: June 14, 2012 9:53 PMTo: Darrell Eddington ([email protected]); Diane Larder; Gary Seitz

([email protected]); Jeff Carswell; Mary Ellen Greb; Mary Ellen Weatherhead; Maureen Simmons; Michael Legge ([email protected]); Patrice Hilderley ([email protected])

Subject: Insurance Review Feasibility Study - Invitation to Presentation - July 11, 2012Attachments: CS 2012-33 Insurance Review Feasibility Study.pdf

At the regular meeting of County Council held June 13, 2012, Council received Report No. A-4 2012-33 titled “Insurance Review Feasibility Study” and adopted the following recommendation:

“That Council approves circulation of the Feasibility Study Reports prepared by KPMG LLP, regarding an Oxford County municipal insurance review, to the Area Municipal Councils for comments and questions; And that the Area Municipal Councils be invited to submit comments, questions and attend a presentation by the KPMG Consultant of the Feasibility Study Reports at the regular meeting of County Council to be held Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at approximately 10:00 a.m.”

The Staff Report is attached to this email which includes KPMG’s Executive Summary. The three detailed reports prepared by KPMG that are referenced in the Staff Report will follow in a separate email due to their size. Please extend the invitation to your respective Councils to attend the County Council meeting scheduled for July 11th at 10:00 a.m. and refer questions for the Consultant or comments with respect to KPMG’s Reports to me in advance of the meeting. Thanks, Lynn Buchner, CGA Director of Corporate Services | County of Oxford | T. 519-539-9800 x3007 This e-mail communication is CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, use or disclosure of the contents or attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any copy of it immediately. Thank you.

Think about our Environment. Print only if necessary.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.f

Report No: A-4 2012-33

CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: June 13, 2012

TO: M. Bragg, CAO FROM: L. Buchner, Director of Corporate Services SUBJECT: Insurance Review Feasibility Study RECOMMENDATION: That Council approves circulation of the Feasibility Study Reports prepared by KPMG LLP, regarding an Oxford County municipal insurance review, to the Area Municipal Councils for comments and questions; And that the Area Municipal Councils be invited to submit comments, questions and attend a presentation by the KPMG Consultant of the Feasibility Study Reports at the regular meeting of County Council to be held Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at approximately 10:00 a.m. PURPOSE: To seek Council’s approval to circulate the Feasibility Study Reports regarding a municipal insurance review as prepared for the County and Area Municipalities by KPMG LLP and set a date for a presentation by the Consultant. BACKGROUND: At their meeting held December 14, 2011, County Council received Report No. A-4 2011-60 titled “Insurance Review” for the purpose of informing Council of the Area Municipal Councils’ responses to a request to support ‘in principal’ an insurance program review and preparation of a feasibility study for the County and its Area Municipalities. As the responses were all in support ‘in principal’ for a collaborative insurance program and risk financing review, the County Treasurer and Area Municipal Treasurers were authorized to circulate a request for proposals (RFP) for a consultant to conduct a municipal insurance review and prepare a feasibility study. In response to the RFP, the County Treasurer and Area Municipal Treasurers’ recommended to County Council, at their regular meeting held February 22, 2012, to engage KPMG LLP to conduct a municipal insurance review and prepare a feasibility study. In response, Council accepted KPMG LLP’s proposal. The RFP, as approved by Council, clearly set out the terms and scope of the engagement, with a completion date set for May 31, 2012. The deliverables required the consultant to formulate recommendations regarding a comprehensive and sustainable municipal insurance program for the County of Oxford and its eight Area Municipalities, based on the following:

5.01 Review existing insurance programs 5.02 Review of traditional insurance market 5.03 Review of Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange reciprocal

Report No: A-4 2012-33 CORPORATE SERVICES

Council Date: June 13, 2012

Page 2 of 2

5.04 Review other available insurance programs 5.05 Review insurance pooling

The RFP further indicated that the Feasibility Study is to provide recommendations with respect to the most beneficial and sustainable municipal insurance and risk management program having regard for the services delivered, risk exposure and risk tolerance of each of the municipalities involved in the Study. Upon completion, the consultant will present the Study to the County and Area Municipal Councils.

COMMENTARY: At a meeting held May 31, 2012, the County and Area Municipal Treasurers met with Jacqueline Friedland, KPMG LLP lead actuary assigned to this project, for the purpose of reviewing the reports prepared by KPMG. The Consultant explained that, due to the complexity of the review, the deliverables were segregated into three reports: Part 1 – Alternative Risk Financing Options Part 2 – Review of Current Program and OMEX Part 3 – Actuarial Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling Attached to this report is an Executive Summary that describes the findings of the three more comprehensive reports. The three detailed reports are available for Council to access from their secured intranet site as they are collectively 120 pages in total. Based on the Treasurers’ review of the aforementioned reports, it is recommended that County Council authorize the circulation of all of the reports to the Area Municipal Councils for their review and comment and to invite them to attend a presentation by the Consultant on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 in the County Council Chambers. Comments and questions received in advance will be made available to the Consultant to allow a more thorough response and make more efficient use of the meeting time. In the meantime, the County and Area Municipal Treasurers are pursing additional information in order to formulate a recommendation for next steps. “Lynn Buchner” “M.R. Bragg” Lynn Buchner M.R. Bragg Director of Corporate Services CAO

lbuchner

Underline

Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street Suite 4600 Toronto, ON M5H 2B5

Draft Release: May 30, 2012

Prepared by:

Jacqueline Friedland, FCAS, FCIA, MAAA(416) 777-8320

[email protected]

Actuarial Report - Executive Summary

Municipal Insurance Program Review

Insurance Industry Practice Property & Casualty Actuarial Services

Oxford County

kpmg.ca

Appendix "A"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Actuarial Report – Executive Summary – Municipal Insurance Program Review i

kpmg

Introduction 1 Identification of Organization, Scope of Actuarial Analysis 1 Use and Distribution 2 Identification of KPMG Lead Actuary 2 Preparation of the Actuarial Report 3 Organization of the Executive Summary 3 Confidentiality of Actuarial Report 3

Current Insurance Programs 4

Self-Funding Considerations 6 To Self-Insure or Not to Self-Insure 6 Risk Appetite 6 Drivers of Self-Insurance 7 Characteristics Conducive to Self-Insurance 7 Most Important Success Factor for Self-Insurance 8 Disadvantages of Self-Insurance 8 Viable Alternatives for the County 9 Outstanding Issues if the County Moves Forward with a Self-Insurance Program 10

Commercial Insurance Options 12

Appendix "A"

Actuarial Report – Executive Summary – Municipal Insurance Program Review 1

kpmg

Introduction

Identification of Organization, Scope of Actuarial Analysis

The County of Oxford (the County), a two tiered municipal corporation, governed by a ten-member council of elected officials (Mayor of the City of Woodstock, and the Mayors of the Towns of Ingersoll and Tillsonburg, and the Mayors of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, Township of Norwich, Township of South-West Oxford, and Township of Zorra, plus two Councillors from the City of Woodstock) requested KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct a municipal insurance program review. The County is exploring risk financing and risk management options for its property and casualty (P&C) insurance risks.

Specifically, the County requested KPMG to conduct a review of:

― Existing insurance programs ― Traditional insurance market ― Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange (OMEX) ― Other available insurance programs ― Self-insurance pooling ― Other creative risk financing alternatives

The County also requested KPMG to prepare a feasibility study report for a self-insurance pooling program.

To address the County’s requirements, we prepare our Actuarial Report in four parts: Executive Summary, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

― The Executive Summary consolidates key issues and considerations from the three parts to assist the County in its deliberations regarding the future structure of its P&C risk financing program. In the Executive Summary, we draw the attention of the County to the key decision points or action steps using yellow highlighted text.

― Part 1 addresses alternative risk financing options including an extensive discussion of self-insurance.

― Part 2 presents a summary of the County’s current commercial P&C insurance programs with Frank Cowan Company (Frank Cowan) and OMEX including a more in depth description of OMEX’s operations.

― Part 3 presents the results of our actuarial feasibility analysis for a self-insurance pooling program for the County.

Each part of the Actuarial Report is prepared to provide detailed documentation of the findings, processes, methodology, and assumptions underlying the municipal insurance program review for the County.

Appendix "A"


kpmg

An important purpose of the Actuarial Report is to give the County a comprehensive report documenting our work in conducting the municipal insurance program review. The Actuarial Report is intended for use by the County management.

We understand that the Actuarial Report will be read by parties who are not actuaries but are knowledgeable about insurance. We strive to produce a readily understandable presentation in both the text description and the accompanying exhibits.

Use and Distribution

Each part of the Actuarial Report (including the opinions and conclusions contained within) is provided to the County solely for its internal use as a guide in its determination of the future structure of its risk financing program. It is not intended or necessarily suitable for any other purpose. We remain available to answer any questions that may arise regarding the Actuarial Report. We assume that the user(s) of this report will seek such explanation as to any matter in question.

We understand that copies of each part of the Actuarial Report will be provided to the municipalities comprising the County. We consent to such distribution on two conditions: (1) the County will distribute the parts of Actuarial Report in their entirety including all text and supporting exhibits and appendices rather than any excerpt and (2) the County will inform all recipients that KPMG remains available to answer any questions which may arise regarding the Actuarial Report.

The County must advise KPMG in writing and receive KPMG’s written permission prior to distributing the Actuarial Report beyond the parties listed above. All third parties agree to keep this report confidential and make no further distribution of this report without the expressed written consent of KPMG.

Any use or reliance on any part of the Actuarial Report by any third party is done at their own risk. KPMG will not be liable for the consequences of any third party acting upon or relying upon any information or conclusions contained in our reports. Any further use or distribution of any part of the Actuarial Report and the attached exhibits and appendices are expressly prohibited without KPMG’s prior written consent.

Identification of KPMG Lead Actuary

Jacqueline Friedland leads the municipal insurance program review for the County on behalf of KPMG. Ms. Friedland is a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries (FCIA), a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society (FCAS), and a Member of the American Academy of Actuaries (MAAA).

Appendix "A"


kpmg

Contact details for Ms. Friedland are:

Jacqueline B. Friedland Partner and Actuarial Practice Leader, Property and Casualty Actuarial Services KPMG Canada Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 4600 Toronto, ON M5H 2S5 Email: [email protected] Tel: 416-777-8320 Fax: 416-777-8818

Preparation of the Actuarial Report

The KPMG actuarial team in Toronto, Ontario prepared the municipal insurance program review on behalf of the County. In addition to Jacqueline Friedland, key members of the KPMG actuarial team include Ellie Zhou, Actuarial Analyst; Irene Tao, ACAS, Manager; and Rachel Dutil FCAS, FCIA, Senior Manager. Ms. Friedland was actively involved in all aspects of the review and is responsible for all selections of methodologies, key assumptions, and findings; she also prepared the written reports documenting the analyses. Each part of the Actuarial Report is presented in the first person plural and represents the efforts of all who contributed to the review.

Organization of the Executive Summary

We organize the Executive Summary in the following four sections:

― Introduction ― Current insurance programs ― Self-funding considerations ― Commercial insurance programs

Confidentiality of Actuarial Report

This Actuarial Report provides comprehensive information about the operations of the County with respect to its current insurance programs. Details are provided to adequately document our work, and ultimately to facilitate the work of the County management in carrying out their duties. All of the information in each part of the Actuarial Report, except that information which is also publicly available from the County, is to be considered strictly confidential.

Because of the nature of the material contained in the Actuarial Report, it is not intended to be subject to any disclosure requirements under any Freedom of Information Acts.

Appendix "A"


kpmg

Current Insurance Programs The County of Oxford and the following municipalities currently obtain their P&C insurance coverages through Frank Cowan:

― City of Woodstock ― Town of Ingersoll ― Town of Tillonsburg ― Township of Blandford-Blenheim ― Township of East Zorra Tavistock ― Township of South West Oxford ― Township of Zorra

For the purpose of our municipal insurance program review, Frank Cowan provided a document titled “Oxford County & Area – Schedule of Policy Limits and Deductibles.” According to this schedule, the program offered by Frank Cowan consists of three parts: Part A for casualty insurance, Part B for property insurance, and Part C for automobile insurance. We summarize the specific coverages contained within each part of the current program in the following table.

Frank Cowan – Part A Casualty Insurance

Frank Cowan – Part B Property Insurance

Frank Cowan – Part C Automobile Insurance

Municipal liability Property Insurance (including data processing)

Automobile fleet

Errors and omissions (E&O) (claims-made form)

Business interruption Automobile fleet (transit)

Non-owned automobile Data processing (as a separate coverage from property insurance)

General liability (community affiliate group(s))

Environmental liability (claims-made form) (EIL)

Commercial building, equipment and stock - named perils form

Comprehensive crime Equipment breakdown Councillors’ accident Moveable property of others Firefighters’ accident Demolition and debris

removal – named perils

Municipal conflict of interest Fine arts Legal expense Exhibition Personal property

We observe that the County of Oxford and the individual municipalities do not necessarily maintain all of the coverages listed above for each part of the program. We assume that the municipalities and the County work with Frank Cowan to determine the specific coverages required for their particular exposure to risk.

Appendix "A"


kpmg

In addition to the coverages listed above, the Town of Tillsonburg carries a Canadian airports’ liability insurance policy, which is arranged through Aon Reed Stenhouse, Inc. The following three insurers provide this coverage for Tillonburg:

― Lloyd’s Underwriters under agreement no. AD1100101 ― Underwriters at Lloyd’s per Catlin Canada Inc. ― Allianz Global Risks US Company Limited The Township of Norwich is currently a subscriber to OMEX. At the request of the County, OMEX provided copies of its standard policy wording for the purpose of our review. We summarize the coverages currently offered by OMEX in the following table.

OMEX Policy Types General liability (GL) E&O (claims-made form) Non-owned automobile EIL (claims-made form) Crime Councillors’ accident Boiler & Machinery (B&M) Automobile Property including:

― Business interruption ― Data processing equipment

In Part 3 of our Actuarial Report, the feasibility analysis for a self-insurance pooling program, we present a summary of current limits and deductibles selected by the County and each municipality for the primary coverages (i.e., general liability, E&O, EIL, automobile, and property). This summary is reproduced as Exhibit A of Part 2 of the Actuarial Report. We note that in addition to the deductibles and limits summarized in Parts 2 and 3, there are numerous other limits and deductibles that are specified for various sub-coverages.

Appendix "A"


kpmg

Self-Funding Considerations

To Self-Insure or Not to Self-Insure

In considering a change to its current insurance program and specifically a potential move to an alternative risk financing option, the major decision for the County is whether or not to self-finance (i.e., self-insure) those risks typically covered by P&C insurance. The decision as to which alternative risk financing mechanism would best suit the County’s needs is in many respects simply a financing or operational decision. The key decision is whether or not the County is prepared to retain and finance the potential claims instead of transferring this risk to an outside and independent commercial insurance company.

Risk Appetite

The County’s position with respect to risk appetite is a very important aspect of the County’s decision-making process regarding the appropriate risk financing and risk management options for its property and casualty (P&C) insurance. Risk appetite is a term widely used, yet many organizations (both corporate and non-profit) of all kinds and sizes are grappling with the concept of risk appetite. When risk appetite is properly understood and clearly defined, it becomes a powerful tool, not only for managing risk, but also for enhancing overall organizational performance.

The issue is deceptively simple: how much risk is the County willing to take in order to attain appropriate or sought-after returns? In the corporate world, “returns” is more readily defined; however, in the public sector, it is more challenging for the County to determine what “returns” mean. This requires definition and articulation by the County. Many leading organizations are finding that a clearly understood and articulated statement of risk appetite helps unlock value by better aligning decision-making and risk.

The amount of risk an organization accepts will vary from organization to organization depending on circumstances unique to each. Factors such as the external environment, people, business systems, and policies will all influence an organization’s risk appetite. In a time of tight budgets and economic hardship, risk appetite may be less than in a robust economic environment.

In Part 1 of the Actuarial Report, we identify eight characteristics of a well-defined risk appetite. Once the County’s risk appetite is defined, the challenge is to implement a robust governance and reporting framework to ensure that day-to-day decisions are in line with the County’s risk appetite. As an Appendix to Part 1, we attach a copy of a KPMG Advisory paper titled “Understanding and articulating risk appetite” that explores this topic further.

Appendix "A"


kpmg

Drivers of Self-Insurance

In considering a potential move to alternative risk financing options, the County will need to consider whether the traditional drivers of self-insurance are applicable to their current situation. The drivers of self-insurance include:

Availability and pricing – One of the primary reasons why organizations consider turning to self-insurance is to take control over its insurance destiny – to be able to ensure the availability over time of adequate insurance coverage at reasonable costs, terms and conditions.

Cost effectiveness – Reducing long-term costs is a primary driver for self-insurance. There are several factors related to improving cost effectiveness through self-insurance including: reduced insurance company expenses, retention of investment earnings, and retention of underwriting profits.

Tailor-made solutions – Related to lack of availability of required coverages, is the need of

many organizations to develop tailor-made solutions to address their unique exposures to risk. Self-insurance can promote greater flexibility and facilitate change as an organization changes.

Enhanced risk management – The mere presence of a self-insurance program generally creates incentives for more proactive risk control and claims management techniques within an organization.

Control – Increased control over costs, investment income, availability of coverage and limits, structure of the insurance program, underwriting standards, risk management programs, and claims and litigation management are all factors in the self-insurance decision making process.

Characteristics Conducive to Self-Insurance

In Part 1 of the Actuarial Report, we identify three characteristics that are conducive to self-insurance: reliability of the estimate of expected claims, the effect of retained investment income, and the cost and availability of acceptable commercial insurance coverage. The County should determine whether or not these characteristics are applicable to their situation.

A reliable estimate of the expected claims (including all claims-related expenses) is an important component of any self-insurance program’s annual costs. The feasibility analysis contained in Part 3 of the Actuarial Report contains extensive discussion on the limited credibility of the County’s historical claims and exposure data. As part of the feasibility analysis, we analyze the County’s historical experience for four lines of business: automobile liability, automobile physical damage, GL (including E&O), and property. While we believe that these are appropriate divisions, we note that there are issues with the credibility of the County’s data due to the limited volume of claims experience for each of the lines of business as well as the variability in the number of claims and volume of claims dollars from year to year. (The reader is referred to Part 3 of the Actuarial Report for a full discussion of this important issue.)

Appendix "A"


kpmg

Historically, the retention of investment income was an important consideration as it contributed significantly to the cost-saving element of self-insurance. Given the current economic situation and relatively low interest rates, the effect of investment income is much less significant today than it has been historically.

One of the most important reasons for self-insuring GL coverage is often the high cost of insurance coverage offered by commercial P&C insurers and/or the unavailability of acceptable coverage, terms and conditions, or limits. The County will need to determine whether its current coverage for GL is reasonable in terms of both cost and breadth of coverage. The County will also need to consider the potential costs and availability of excess insurance for GL as these costs can be a very important component of GL self-insurance programs protecting the organization from variability related to random large claims.

Most Important Success Factor for Self-Insurance

The single most important success factor in the implementation of any self-insurance program is a long-term commitment by the participant(s). Before embarking on a self-insurance program, the County should require a long-tem participation commitment from all participants. The viability of any self-insurance mechanism will be severely threatened if participant(s) switch back and forth between the commercial insurance market and a County-sponsored alternative depending on the pricing trends in the commercial market.

Disadvantages of Self-Insurance

In deciding whether to self-insure or not to self-insure, the County will need to take into account the following considerations and disadvantages:

Increased administrative responsibilities – To ensure sound operations, a self-insurance program requires a commitment of time, money, personnel, and management.

Variability in claims – It is critical that the County recognizes that it is ultimately assuming the risk related to the self-insured claims. If claims exceed expectations, due to either adverse performance or failure of excess insurance partners, the County is ultimately responsible for the payment of claims.

Pricing of other lines of insurance – Insurance program pricing for the County may become higher if the County decide to self-insure only certain lines of business and seeks to retain its commercial coverage for other lines of business.

Capitalization requirements – The purpose of surplus for a self-insurance program is to

ensure that the program has sufficient resources to provide for the cost associated with unexpected claims. The amount of surplus that is defined as “adequate” would depend to a great extent on the County’s own risk profile and its risk appetite.

Appendix "A"


kpmg

Excess coverage – It is prudent practice for most self-insurance P&C programs to purchase excess insurance. Since the insurance market cycles impacts excess insurance, the County could face pricing and availability issues with its excess insurance program.

Competitiveness of commercial market – Depending on the insurance market cycle, self-

insurance can sometimes result in increased cost for particular lines of coverage. It is not uncommon for self-insurers to reduce their retention in times of a soft insurance market to take advantage of less expensive, readily available commercial coverage.

Viable Alternatives for the County

In Part 1 of the Actuarial Report we describe four alternative risk financing mechanisms:

Funded deductible program with a commercial insurance carrier Formal self-insurance fund or pool Captive insurance Reciprocal insurance exchange

We can consider these alternatives as options along a self-funding continuum. The funded deductible program, which is at one end of the continuum because it has the greatest involvement from the insurance market, may be the quickest option to implement, and may have the lowest level of self-funding of all the alternatives. Captive insurance and reciprocal insurance exchanges are at the other end of the continuum as they represent a true entry into the insurance business with companies subject to the financial reporting and regulatory reporting requirements of the jurisdictions in which they are domiciled. We would position self-insurance funds between these two ends of the continuum.

We believe that creating a captive insurance company is not practical for the County. We are unaware of any public entity in Canada that has created a captive insurer. Furthermore, the initial set-up costs, ongoing operational expenses, and capitalization requirements of a captive insurer are likely to be impractical for the County. In addition, there are significant concerns about the lack of sufficient credible historical experience from which to develop reliable estimates of expected claims.

Similar comments apply to the development of an independent reciprocal insurance exchange created solely for the County. We do not believe that it is reasonable for the County to consider establishing its own reciprocal insurance exchange. We differentiate the decision to create a new reciprocal, which we do not believe is viable, from the decision to purchase coverage from OMEX, an existing reciprocal. We would categorize a decision to purchase insurance coverage from OMEX, which would be a reasonable alternative for the County to consider, as simply a decision as to which commercial market to utilize and not as a decision regarding the use of an alternative risk financing mechanism.

If the County determines that it wants to move forward with a self-funded program having considered and articulated its risk appetite and recognizing the necessity of a long-term commitment from all participants, then we believe that the two viable alternatives are a funded deductible program and a formal self-insurance program (i.e., fund or pool).

Appendix "A"


kpmg

We highlight that before selecting the alternative risk financing mechanism (i.e., funded deductible or self-insurance pool), the County must first make decisions regarding the following:

What is the County’s risk appetite?

Are the traditional drivers for self-insurance applicable to the County’s situation?

Does the current situation at the County generate factors conducive to self-insurance? For example, can a reliable estimate of expected claims be developed for the lines of business for which the County wants to self-insure? What is the current environment in terms of cost and availability of coverage for GL insurance, on a primary and excess basis?

Are all participants willing to commit on a long-term basis to a self-insurance program?

Outstanding Issues if the County Moves Forward with a Self-Insurance Program

If the County decides that it wants to move forward with a self-funded program, such as a funded deductible or self-insurance pool, then there are numerous issues for which the County will require further review and decision-making. In Part 3, we note that as the County explores options for its P&C program for policy year 2012, it will need to address issues including but not limited to:

― What is the appropriate retention for a self-insurance pool?

― Should all municipalities within the County be required to participate?

― Are members of the pool allowed to choose their own deductible retentions? Can member deductible retentions vary by coverage?

― Can the County find a commercial insurance partner willing to participate in the self-insurance pool described in this Actuarial Report in terms of limits and lines of business (or a similar type of pooling program)?

― Should only GL be in the pool as it is the only line of business for which there is a

reasonably reliable estimate of expected claims based on historical claims experience?

― Does increasing the number of lines of business (i.e., automobile, GL, and property coverages) in the pool help spread the financial risk in any one policy year?

― Is the pool more attractive to a commercial insurance partner with only GL or more lines of

business?

― What are other options and what are the associated costs? The value of the feasibility analysis contained in Part 3 of this Actuarial Report is limited if the projected costs contained herein are not compared to other viable options of similar lines of business and limits (both member deductibles and policy limits).

Appendix "A"


kpmg

― When comparing other options, it is also important to consider non-financial issues, such as risk management services and public entity expertise which would be available to the County trough a commercial insurance program.

― If the County selects a self-insurance mechanism, there are additional costs that need to be

considered. (See Part 1 of the Actuarial Report.)

Appendix "A"


kpmg

Commercial Insurance Options As the County explores its options for policy year 2012, transferring the risks typically covered by P&C insurance to OMEX and/or Frank Cowan, the County’s current commercial insurance providers, would be the two most obvious options. Based on discussions with representatives from OMEX and Frank Cowan, we understand that they are both interested in expanding their service offerings to the County.

In Part 2 of the Actuarial Report, we provide a comprehensive description of OMEX as requested by the County in its Request for Proposal. We present our review of OMEX as a series of questions and answers from our in-person meeting with Linda Boyle, Executive Director, and John Azzarello, Director of Insurance Services on April 4, 2012. We also rely on information from the OMEX web-site and documents provided at our meeting. We would classify the coverage offered by OMEX as a traditional risk transfer. With OMEX, the County would be able to choose deductibles by line of business; thus, there would be some level of self-funding. However, we do not anticipate that such self-funding would likely be significantly greater than the County’s current deductible retentions.

Based on a telephone discussion, we understand that Frank Cowan is willing to work with the County to support a self-insurance pool with a relatively low self-insured retention (such as $100,000 per occurrence limit). When considering a self-insurance pool and a partnership with Frank Cowan, we refer the County to the list of outstanding issues raised in the previous section (pages 10 and 11) of this Executive Summary.

In addition to OMEX and Frank Cowan, we contacted numerous other commercial insurers requesting that they share their standard policies for public entities as well as information about their preferred deductible and limit options. Several organizations responded that they are not interested in the municipal sector at this time and others mentioned that they currently participate in the Frank Cowan program. We only heard from one insurer with interest in this sector. Thus, we are unable to provide sufficient information about the current options that would be available through commercial insurance markets for the County.

It is important for the County to recognize that KPMG is not an insurance broker and, as a result, we do not offer insurance placement services. Thus, simply because our personal contacts, primarily with senior actuaries, at a number of commercial insurance companies did not indicate interest in the public sector, does not mean that there are no other options for a municipal insurance program from the commercial insurance market. We would recommend that the County seek such market information through the services of a professional insurance broker.

Appendix "A"

From: Lynn BuchnerTo: Darrell Eddington ([email protected]); Diane Larder; Gary Seitz ([email protected]); Jeff

Carswell; Mary Ellen Greb; Mary Ellen Weatherhead; Maureen Simmons; Michael Legge([email protected]); Patrice Hilderley ([email protected])

Subject: Business Tax Capping Reform - ResolutionDate: June 14, 2012 10:19:17 PMAttachments: CS 2012-32 Business Tax Policy Reform.pdf

business tax policy reform append A 120613.doc.pdf

At the regular meeting of County Council held June 13, 2012, Council received Report No. A-3 2012-32 titled “Business Tax Capping Reform” and adopted the following recommendation:

“Whereas the Province of Ontario first introduced mandatory “business tax

capping” for

the commercial, industrial and multi-residential property classes as a

temporary reform

mitigation program for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 taxation years;

And whereas this “temporary” and “transitional” measure was succeeded by

a

permanent business tax capping program for the 2001 and subsequent

taxation years;

And whereas the 2012 taxation year will represent the fifteenth taxation cycle

for which

mandatory business tax capping has applied;

And whereas the overall business tax capping scheme was introduced as a

means of

assisting taxpayers manage tax shifts related to Provincial Assessment and

Property Tax

reforms introduced for the 1998 taxation year;

And whereas it has become evident over time that the protection provided

under this

program has been less related to the original impacts of reform and more so

due to the

ongoing impacts of subsequent assessment base updates;

And whereas this program must now be seen as a redundant measure in light

of the

Province’s successful four-year assessment phase-in program, which more

effectively

and equitably addresses assessment increases for all properties;

And whereas this program now has only a marginal impact on a very limited

number of

taxpayers due to the County’s careful and deliberate application of optional

parameter

and exclusion tools, and yet it remains a significant burden on the financial

and

administrative resources of both the County and our local municipalities;

mailto:/O=OXFORD COUNTY/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=LBUCHNER

mailto:[email protected]











Brenda Junker

Text Box

Staff recommends that Council support this resolution. It is certainly time that the capping regime was put to rest. Of the 184 properties in the capped classes in EZT, only 16 are still capped in some manner - the rest are taxed at CVA. With the success of the phase-in assessment program, to continue the capping just creates more confusion, as stated by MTE. The province should be encouraged to end the confusion and allow phased assessment to work to its full potential to create equity and fairness for all property tax payers.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.g

Therefore be it resolved that the County of Oxford calls on the Government of

the

Province of Ontario to Amend Part IX of the Municipal Act, 2001 and

supporting

regulatory provisions so as to make the entirety of that Part (Business Tax

Capping)

optional at the discretion of each upper and single tier jurisdiction; and

That the County of Oxford calls on the Government of the Province of Ontario

to make

these changes and amendments effective for the 2013 taxation year to

coincide with the

pending reassessment and related four-year assessment cycle; and

That the discussion paper “Allowing Municipalities to Opt Out of Business

Tax Capping”

prepared by Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consulting Inc., which speaks

directly to this

subject matter, and which addresses many of this Council’s concerns,

interests and

preferences, shall be attached to, and shall form a part of this motion; and

That copies of this motion, along with the above mentioned attachment, are

to be sent to:

the Area Municipalities in the County of Oxford; Premier Dalton McGuinty;

The

Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance; Honourable Kathleen

O’Wynne, Minister

of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Ernie Hardeman, MPP Oxford; Gary

McNamara,

President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO); Allan Doheny,

Assistant

Deputy Minister – Provincial Local Finance Division (Acting); Janet Mason,

Assistant

Deputy Minister – Local Government and Planning Policy Division, Minister of

Municipal

Affairs and Housing. Please forward a copy of this resolution and the attached ‘Discussion Paper’, titled “AllowingMunicipalities to Opt Out of Business Tax Capping” to our Councils for consideration of support. Thanks you,Lynn Buchner, CGADirector of Corporate Services | County of Oxford | T. 519-539-9800 x3007 This e-mail communication is CONFIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, use ordisclosure of the contents or attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, pleasenotify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any copy of it immediately. Thank you.

þ Think about our Environment. Print only if necessary.

Report No: A-3 2012-32

CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: June 13, 2012

TO: M. Bragg, CAO FROM: L. Buchner, Director of Corporate Services SUBJECT: Business Tax Capping Policy Reform RECOMMENDATION: Whereas the Province of Ontario first introduced mandatory “business tax capping” for the commercial, industrial and multi-residential property classes as a temporary reform mitigation program for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 taxation years;

And whereas this “temporary” and “transitional” measure was succeeded by a permanent business tax capping program for the 2001 and subsequent taxation years,

And whereas the 2012 taxation year will represent the fifteenth taxation cycle for which mandatory business tax capping has applied;

And whereas the overall business tax capping scheme was introduced as a means of assisting taxpayers manage tax shifts related to Provincial Assessment and Property Tax reforms introduced for the 1998 taxation year;

And whereas it has become evident over time that the protection provided under this program has been less related to the original impacts of reform and more so due to the ongoing impacts of subsequent assessment base updates;

And whereas this program must now be seen as a redundant measure in light of the Province’s successful four-year assessment phase-in program, which more effectively and equitably addresses assessment increases for all properties;

And whereas this program now has only a marginal impact on a very limited number of taxpayers due to the County’s careful and deliberate application of optional parameter and exclusion tools, and yet it remains a significant burden on the financial and administrative resources of both the County and our local municipalities;

Therefore be it resolved that the County of Oxford calls on the Government of the Province of Ontario to Amend Part IX of the Municipal Act, 2001 and supporting regulatory provisions so as to make the entirety of that Part (Business Tax Capping) optional at the discretion of each upper and single tier jurisdiction; and

That the County of Oxford calls on the Government of the Province of Ontario to make these changes and amendments effective for the 2013 taxation year to coincide with the pending reassessment and related four-year assessment cycle; and

That the discussion paper “Allowing Municipalities to Opt Out of Business Tax Capping” prepared by Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consulting Inc., which speaks directly to this subject matter, and which addresses many of this Council’s concerns, interests and preferences, shall be attached to, and shall form a part of this motion; and



Page 2 of 3

That copies of this motion, along with the above mentioned attachment, are to be sent to: the Area Municipalities in the County of Oxford; Premier Dalton McGuinty; The Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance; Honourable Kathleen O’Wynne, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Ernie Hardeman, MPP Oxford; Gary McNamara, President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO); Allan Doheny, Assistant Deputy Minister – Provincial Local Finance Division (Acting); Janet Mason, Assistant Deputy Minister – Local Government and Planning Policy Division, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

PURPOSE: To seek County and Area Municipal Councils’ support in requesting the Minister of Finance and the Province of Ontario to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 to allow municipalities to opt out of the business tax capping program. BACKGROUND: Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. (MTE) recently circulated a discussion paper entitled “Allowing Municipalities to Opt Out of Business Tax Capping”. The discussion paper is attached to this report as Appendix “A” and very clearly describes the burden that the business tax capping regime has imposed on municipalities since its implementation in 1998 and how tax and assessment policy has changed over the years. It is the opinion of MTE, based on their Ontario municipal client base, that the majority of municipalities have purposefully adopted the use of optional tax capping tools to bring properties to current market value assessment (CVA) based tax, effectively eliminating capping protection. In 2003, the County and Area Municipalities attempted to obtain political support both at the municipal and at the provincial level to eliminate the business tax capping regime by passing the following resolution:

“Whereas the purpose of the new property taxation regime was to provide a tax system that was fair, understandable and comparable across the province; And whereas the introduction of the various capping programs to protect certain classes has resulted in a system that is complex, difficult to understand, unfair to many property taxpayers and excessively costly to administer; Therefore be it resolved that Council of the County of Oxford request that the Province of Ontario immediately review the capping regime with an aim to eliminate it; And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Ernie Hardeman, M.P.P., Oxford, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association (MFOA) for their support.”

Although there was significant support of this request at the municipal level, instead of eliminating the program, the Province maintained the capping regime and, starting in 2005, began introducing new tools to allow municipalities to move business properties toward tax based on CVA and permanently excluding those properties from capping in the future.

lbuchner

Underline



Page 3 of 3

COMMENTARY: The Discussion Paper mentions the resource and financial burden that municipalities have had to bear as a result of business tax capping policies. In the case of Oxford County, the annual tax policy review relies heavily on an annual tax policy and assessment report prepared by MTE which is carefully reviewed by the Area Municipal Treasurers prior to making annual tax policy recommendations for consideration of County Council. Further, MTE is retained by the County to assist with in-year capping calculations resulting from changes to the assessment of business properties that have an impact on their tax obligations – often affecting multiple years. The capping related services provided by MTE cost on average $59,275 – with the highest cost being paid in 2005 at $74,251 and the lowest in 2007 at $38,503. The average cost of $59,275 represents approximately .15% of the County’s levy. If the Province were to allow municipalities the discretion to opt out of the business tax capping program, the County would not only realize savings in terms of the fees paid to MTE, but each of the Area Municipalities would realize fairly significant savings in staff time required to ensure the business tax billings and in-year adjustments are accurate and explaining the complex calculations and inequities of tax bills to taxpayers of business class properties. This time savings could be utilized to more effectively maintain the quality and accuracy of the assessment base. In addition to the aforementioned arguments in support of local autonomy, allowing municipalities the ability to opt out of business tax capping, MTE’s Discussion Paper recalls that the tax capping program was introduced as a means to provide business taxpayers with temporary relief from significant increases in tax obligations resulting from the Province’s new property tax and assessment system, however, the business tax capping program is now redundant due to the success of the four-year assessment phase-in program which more effectively and equitably addresses assessment increases for all properties. As January 1, 2013 marks the first year of property reassessment in Ontario based on January 1, 2012 values, this would be an appropriate time to amend the Municipal Act, 2001, reinforced by the fact that 2012 marks the prescribed five year review of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Area Municipal Treasurers recently met to consider the Discussion Paper as prepared by MTE and unanimously agreed to seek County Council and Area Municipal Council’s support to request the Province to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 to allow municipalities with tax policy setting authority to opt out of the business tax capping program. “Lynn Buchner” “M.R. Bragg” Lynn Buchner M.R. Bragg Director of Corporate Services CAO

CLIENT RESOURCE

© 2012 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc.

Discussion Paper

Allowing Municipalities to Opt Out of Business Tax Capping

Prepared by:

Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc. 12005 Steeles Avenue, RR #3

Georgetown, Ontario L7G 4S6

June 1, 2012

Appendix "A"

CLIENT RESOURCE

© 2012 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc.

Disclaimer and Caution The information, views, data and discussions in this document and related material are provided for general reference purposes only. Regulatory and statutory references are, in many instances, not directly quoted excerpts and the reader should refer to the relevant provisions of the legislation and regulations for complete information. The discussion and commentary contained in this report do not constitute legal advice or the provision of legal services as defined by the Law Society Act, any other Act, or Regulation. If legal advice is required or if legal rights are, or may be an issue, the reader must obtain an independent legal opinion. Decisions should not be made in the sole consideration of or reliance on the information and discussions contained in this report. It is the responsibility of each individual in either of a decision-making or advisory capacity to acquire all relevant and pertinent information required to make an informed and appropriate decision with regards to any matter under consideration concerning municipal finance issues. MTE is not responsible to the municipality, nor to any other party for damages arising based on incorrect data or due to the misuse of the information contained in this study, including without limitation, any related, indirect, special or consequential damages.

Appendix "A"

CLIENT RESOURCE

© 2012 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. 2

Introduction and Purpose Leading into 1998, sweeping reforms to the property assessment and taxation system were introduced by the Harris Government under the auspices of a number of key goals. Primary among these was ensuring that the assessment of real property and taxation practices across Ontario would be more fair, consistent, and understandable for taxpayers. Despite this original conviction, when faced with widespread criticism of their initial efforts the Government of the day quickly introduced a mandatory tax capping program for business class properties for the 1998 through 2000 tax cycles, which became known as the 10-5-5, in a laudable attempt to ease the transition to the new property tax regime. Since these early days of reform, a variety of modified tax capping protection regimes have been implemented, replacing earlier successors with more permanent forms of relief. This tradition has created a long legacy of inequity within the multi-residential, commercial and industrial tax classes, which has effectively undermined the original goals of a stable, fair, transparent, and easily administered assessment and property tax system in the Province of Ontario. Since the initial implementation of business tax capping in Ontario, Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc. has worked intently with property tax professionals and municipalities across the Province to meet the policy and administrative challenges of these demanding and complicated tax protection programs. MTE’s involvement with capping has ranged from the development of critical educational materials and seminars, to the provision of ad-hoc expert assistance, to the development and management of our full service stand-alone capping program. To ensure that MTE’s clients and the municipal community at large have had access to the most current and highest quality information and support, MTE has invested the time and resources required at every stage to ensure that our capping expertise evolved in-step with the program itself. This evolution has been deliberate in terms of capping program and calculation mechanics, the options available to municipalities, and the changing patterns of capping outcomes. From MTE’s unique vantage point over the capping landscape, it has been possible to observe the history of capping unfold and have experienced its evolution at every stage. What has become particularly evident since the advent of CVA exclusion options in 2009 is that currently in many jurisdictions the actual impact of capping on the taxpayers’ final liabilities has become marginal or non-existent. The capping program has diminished dramatically in importance, and is proving to have a material impact on fewer properties each year. The concern remains, however, that despite the limited number and magnitude of capping adjustments now being applied, the program as a whole continues to require significant time and resources to administer and manage. In light of the fact that so many municipal councils have adopted policy schemes aimed at minimizing the impact of capping to the greatest degree possible, it seems obvious that the next change to Ontario’s capping policy, as currently set out under Part IX of the Municipal Act, 2001, is for the Province to give municipalities the ability to Opt Out of the program in its entirety. Further, it may also be argued that 2013 is the most appropriate and opportune time for this change to be made.

Appendix "A"

CLIENT RESOURCE


The following discussion has been prepared to explore this issue in a systematic fashion. Ideally, it will ultimately serve to crystallize, summarize and articulate the municipal perspective. To this end, tax practitioners, decision makers and taxpayers are asked to carefully consider the comments and general themes set out below. Other insights to ensure that this policy option can be comprehensively analyzed and evaluated are both welcome and invited; this will ensure that the vast array of stakeholder interests in the property tax process are carefully considered and captured before any new policy scheme is developed and implemented.

Overview of Business Tax Capping Legislation creating the mandatory “10-5-5” tax capping program was originally presented as a transitional measure to provide temporary tax protection for the 1998 through 2000 tax cycles. In 2001, however, the Province introduced additional property tax reforms that served to reinforce the prescriptive nature of the property tax policy environment in Ontario. At this time, tax capping became a permanent feature of the property tax landscape as the original, temporary 10-5-5 program was replaced on a Province-wide basis with a modified model known as the “5% limit on increases”. In response to concerns about the mechanics and prescriptive nature of the business tax capping program, the McGuinty Government announced a series of reforms for 2005 and subsequent taxation years. These reforms introduced a number of capping options to be used at the discretion of single and upper-tier municipalities. The initial range of optional tools included: 1) the ability to increase the annual cap from 5% of the previous year’s final capped taxes up to 10%; 2) setting a second limit for annual increases of up to 5% of the previous year’s annualized CVA taxes; and/or 3) the establishment of dollar thresholds of up to $250 whereby properties with nominal capping adjustments could be moved directly to their CVA tax liability in any given year. The 2005 reform package attempted to balance the interests of those in favour of maintaining property tax capping against the call to give municipalities the flexibility to accelerate movement towards full CVA taxation for all classes of property where this was the local preference. The 2009 taxation year represented another in a long series of reform and reassessment cycles. In addition to a number of fundamental changes to the assessment system, which included the introduction of a four-year reassessment cycle coupled with a program to phase-in assessment increases, the Province gave municipalities the option to begin permanently excluding individual properties from capping by utilizing “stay at CVA tax” and “cross-over CVA tax” tools. Challenges at the Municipal Level Municipalities throughout the Province have devoted significant resources to ensure compliant and appropriate implementation of the mandatory tax capping program since its inception. The capping program has proven to be an administrative and budgetary burden because of the increased complexity it has added to the annual tax billing exercise and the management of any in-year tax adjustments required in response to assessment appeals, tax rebates or other events that demand that taxes be recalculated.

Appendix "A"

CLIENT RESOURCE


Despite the burdens posed by the business tax capping regime, Ontario’s municipalities have accepted the associated challenges and have demonstrated a high degree of local responsibility with respect to the shape and outcomes of this program as it applies to taxpayers. Since the original introduction of optional capping tools in 2005, municipal staff and decision makers have in the vast majority of cases shown a keen interest and willingness to capitalize on the various options provided by the Province in order to optimize local capping regimes and accelerate the greatest number of properties to their full CVA tax liability. In addition to the application of the core capping calculation options, municipalities have widely utilized the “new construction” constraint options, which ensures new or significantly improved capped class properties are subject to CVA tax. Based on our observations, the majority of municipalities across the Province have strategically and deliberately employed the mix of optional capping tools in each taxation year that proved to be the most effective in meeting their local capping objectives. For most, this has meant a marked decrease in the annual cost of capping protection being provided and a striking increase in the number of properties being taxed at their full CVA tax level (i.e. CVA multiplied by Applicable Tax Rates). This not only means that more tax bills are being issued without capping adjustments, it also means that when in-year adjustments are required, the end tax adjustment is most likely to be made in direct proportion to any change in assessed value. This is not the case for properties subject to either a cap or claw-back adjustment. Case for Capping “Opt-Out” Policy The increasing range of capping options provided by the Province since 2005 has been a welcome change from the more prescriptive environment, which characterized 2004 and previous years. Notwithstanding the current flexibility offered to municipalities to tailor their local capping programs, we believe that there is a significant consensus within the municipal community that it is time for municipalities to be given the ability to opt out of business tax capping entirely. The McGuinty Government has proven it values policies that place the responsibility for local property tax decisions with the level of government most directly responsible for levying the tax itself. The Government’s policy changes surrounding capping options, tax ratio movement, and levy restriction rules (hard-capping), have all provided municipalities with greater autonomy to craft local tax regimes that truly reflect local priorities and objectives within a common set of Province-wide standards and criteria. The Government must now show its commitment to this trajectory, thereby making decisions with respect to the future of capping in our communities local responsibilities. It should also be noted that the case for giving municipalities the ability to opt out of business tax capping is based on factors that go far beyond the argument for local autonomy; it is also strongly rooted in the fact that this specific program is outdated, redundant, inherently inequitable, administratively cumbersome and confusing to the taxpayer. The most relevant and critical of the concerns and issues raised by this program are explored below. In sum, it is MTE`s view that they create an overwhelming argument for the Government to make the continuation of capping a local choice.

Appendix "A"

CLIENT RESOURCE


Capping has been made Redundant by the Four-Year Phase-In Program In its original incarnation, the tax capping program was introduced as a means to provide business tax payers with temporary relief as they became acclimated to the Province’s new property tax and assessment system. In subsequent years, however, the protection provided to taxpayers has been less related to the original impacts of reform and more so due to the ongoing impacts of subsequent assessment base updates. While prior arguments could suggest that its continuation was necessary so as not to remove or deny protection, this program must now be seen as a redundant measure in light of the Province’s successful four-year assessment phase-in program, which more effectively and equitably addresses assessment increases for all properties. Capping Creates Inequitable Tax Treatment One of the central tenets of Ontario’s property assessment and taxation system is that all properties are subject to a uniform valuation date, and that similar properties are to be assessed in a similar manner across the entire Province. While tax rates do fluctuate by jurisdiction and property class, the overall structure of the system is intended to ensure that properties that are similar in nature, value and use carry a similar portion of the overall tax burden. The marked exception from this goal is the mandatory tax capping program for business class properties. Under this system, two properties in the same municipality, assessed at the same value, can be subject to very different tax liabilities. While one may enjoy a large capping credit, the other could be forced to fund the cap with a tax liability in excess of what its CVA and prevailing tax rates would otherwise suggest. In another instance, one property may be eligible for capping protection going into the 2013 reassessment, while another, with the same 2012 and 2013 assessment might be excluded. There are endless combinations and examples that could be provided, but the critical point is that the capping program creates inequities by distorting the tax liability of each property subject to an adjustment, which results in similar properties paying disparate taxes. Ultimately, this undermines the intention of the property tax system to treat similar properties in a similar manner by breaking the link between one’s assessment, the tax rates and the final taxes owing. Capping also creates more subjective and global inequities in our property tax system. For example, in many jurisdictions, we see that the capping protection that is still being provided is concentrated to the benefit of a very few taxpayers. Those still captured by the capping rules are generally the very small minority, and it can be easily argued that it is unfair and inappropriate for a large number of business owners to be funding special treatment for a small sub-set of taxpayers. It should also be noted that in jurisdictions where the application of the claw-back option is not possible, or is insufficient to cover the costs of capping, the costs of protection for these small groups of business taxpayers must be funded by all other taxpayers. This concern is further amplified by the fact that the current system is designed to ensure that those receiving the greatest protection will continue to benefit with no specific end in sight. Capping is Administratively Cumbersome and Complex There are also a number of practical considerations beyond the program’s utility that remain relevant regardless of how many or how few capping adjustments, if any, are required in any

Appendix "A"

CLIENT RESOURCE


given jurisdiction. The capping program has proven to be very time-consuming, cumbersome and costly to administer. Simply undertaking the calculations, applying adjustments to specific properties and managing affected tax accounts requires an abundance of internal resources. Municipalities continue to devote considerable human and budgetary resources each year to ensure that tax bills and adjustments are accurate, compliant and timely. These resources could be more effectively and strategically deployed to other more productive ends, such as improving the delivery of other services, if not for the demands of capping. Once adjusted bills are issued, the complicated and intricate nature of the capping calculations themselves make them very difficult for the lay person, business owner, and even many tax professionals to understand. This coupled with the often counter-intuitive outcomes revealed on tax bills and tax adjustments, result in an ongoing demand for explanations from taxpayers and their agents. This confusion and the awkwardness of the calculations has also had an impact beyond just the taxpayer. The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), the Assessment Review Board (ARB), and even Provincial courts have struggled with the capping implications of decisions and adjustments since the inception of the original program. Again, this confusion is often confounded by the potential for counter-intuitive results. For example, it is not uncommon for a property owner to spend time and money seeking a reduction in their assessment only to find out later that the reduction does not result in any change to their final “capped” tax liability. For municipalities, this all means that intensive resources must be dedicated to the on-going management and maintenance of the capping program; for the taxpayer it often appears that their tax liability is arbitrary and incomprehensible. Next Steps and Weighing In 2012 represents the fifteenth taxation cycle that has been impacted by mandatory tax capping in Ontario. It is MTE`s view that in light of the more effective, equitable and predictable protection provided by the ongoing assessment phase-in program, it is timely for an exit strategy option to be put in place. MTE is also of the opinion that it would be ideal to make this option available in conjunction with the next general reassessment. This would allow municipalities to carefully consider and evaluate the tax impacts and shifts associated with the 2013 reassessment campaign both with and without capping in place. Such insight would allow interested municipalities to make informed decisions about whether or not to continue with this form of tax protection into the future. To provide municipalities with the flexibility needed to address their current priorities and circumstances with respect to mandatory tax capping protection, it is strongly recommended that the Minister of Finance and the Province of Ontario be requested to amend the contents of the Municipal Act, 2001 to allow upper and single-tier municipalities to opt out of the business tax capping program set out in Part IX of that Act for the 2013 taxation year and future tax cycles.

Appendix "A"

1

Brenda Junker

From: Amy Matheson (OCFA) <[email protected]>Sent: June-11-12 10:55 AMTo: Amy Matheson (OCFA) Subject: Farm Bus Invitation, Tuesday June 26.

Oxford County Federation of Agriculture Farm Bus Tuesday June 26, 2012

The Oxford County Federation of Agriculture invites you to take a tour on the Farm Bus! What? The Farm Bus is an agricultural tour of Oxford County. This year our tour will be focused in and around Norwich Township. The purpose of the Farm Bus is to showcase, promote awareness and give a taste of what Oxford County has to offer. Where? 9:00 a.m. at TA Travel centre – 535 Mill St., Woodstock (just off Hwy 401 & Sweaburg Rd.) to meet our Cherrey Coach bus. From then we will be visiting Gunn’s Hill Artisan Cheese, Godelie Family Farm, Goossens Trout Farm and one additional stop TBD. Lunch will be provided by JP’s Catering and Barbeque, and will feature all of the ingredients from our farm tour and will be served on-location at the Godelie Family Farm. When? Tuesday June 26th, 2012. 9:00am until 3:00pm. Who? MP’s, MPP’s, Mayors and Council Members, Commodity Representatives, Media, OFA and OCFA Representatives and Staff. Please RSVP with number attending no later than Friday June 22 at 5:00pm to Amy Matheson, [email protected] or by calling 519-852-8836. Please note an official itinerary will be sent out shortly to those attending, if you are unable to join us for the entire day, we welcome you to join us at one of our stops. Thank you and look forward to seeing you on the Farm Bus! Amy Matheson Amy Matheson Administrative Coordinator Oxford County Federation of Agriculture 436494 Line 43 Embro, Ontario. N0J 1J0 519-852-8836 www.oxfordag.ca

Brenda Junker

Text Box

4.h

STAFF REPORT Report #PW2012-11 To:

His Worship the Mayor and Members of Council

From:

Dennis O’Neil, Director of Public works and Development

Re:

Fiber-Mat Application on 13th Line

Date: June 13, 2012 Background: With the recent conversion of sections of gravel roads to hard top it is important for the Township to maintain a “pavement management program”. As part of the 2012 Capital Budget, fiber-matting of the 13th Line south of Oxford Road #33 was tendered in cooperation with Oxford County Public Works. Staff believes that by adding our small product requirements to the County’s much larger contract, the Township can realize significant savings. The process is a surface treatment with fiber added which staff believes significantly extends the life of the hard surface. This product has been used on the Braemar road, 13th Line north of Maplewood, (along golf course) and on the 13th Line from Oxford Road #17 north to where the proposed work would be done. The township has used this product before with very good results. There was only one bidder for this tender as there are only a couple of companies that can perform the work required. The bid price from NorJohn Industries is $4.45/m2 which works out to about $46,000 for the complete job. The 2012 budget contains $44,200 for this project.

Brenda Junker

Text Box

6.d

Staff Report – Fiber-Mat Application on 13th Line Page 2 Recommendation:

1. That Council accept the bid from NorJohn Industries to apply Fiber mat to the 13th Line at a cost of $4.45/m2, plus applicable taxes, in accordance with the terms of Oxford County tender PW-R-12-007.

C.A.O. Comments I agree. The slight overage can be accommodated in the 2012 budget.

Report prepared and submitted by:

Jeff Carswell Chief Administrative Officer

Dennis O’NeilDirector of Public works and

Development

STAFF REPORT Report #TC2012-06 To:

His Worship the Mayor and Members of Council

From:

Brenda Junker, Clerk

Re:

Appoint Engineer to Revise Maintenance Schedule for Stan Erb Drain

Date:

June 13, 2012

Background: In November 2011, Council received a request from a ratepayer on the Stan Erb Drain to revise the maintenance schedule to recognize the increased flow of water from the Tavistock and Shakespeare Drains. A resolution was passed to “seek permission from the Ontario Drainage Tribunal to engage an engineer to prepare a report to revised the assessments in the Maintenance Schedule of the Stan Erb Drain by incorporating assessment against ratepayers in the watersheds of the Tavistock Drain 1974, the Tavistock Drain 2006, and the Shakespeare Drain.” Discussion: As a portion of Perth East is in the affected watersheds, permission was sought, and granted, to proceed. With the assistance of Township Engineer, Kenn Smart, all pertinent documents and information were submitted to the Tribunal on May 14, 2012. On June 1st, the Tribunal granted permission to appoint an Engineer under Section 76 of The Drainage Act to prepare the necessary report. A copy of the Tribunal Order is attached to this report. The new schedule will more adequately reflect the flow of water into the Stan Erb Drain when future maintenance is required, and will assess all affected parties accordingly. The process we follow at this point is similar to when we have new drain construction in progress “ie” appoint an engineer; a report is prepared for consideration; Court of Revision is held, etc. The cost of engineering is billed to ratepayers identified in the report. As we are now in a position to proceed, staff recommends that Council appoint K Smart Associates Ltd. to prepare a report under Section 76 of the Drainage Act. Not only has the firm been involved in engineering on at least

Brenda Junker

Text Box

6.e

Staff Report – Stan Erb Drain Future Maintenance Schedule Page 2 two of the drains that are affected, they were also very supportive in assisting staff in preparation of the documentation necessary to obtain a favourable decision from the Tribunal. Recommendations: 1. That Council appoint K Smart Associates Ltd to prepare a report to

revise the maintenance schedule of the Stan Erb Drain pursuant to Section 76 of The Drainage Act.

C.A.O. Comments I agree.

Report prepared and submitted by:

Jeff Carswell Chief Administrative Officer

Brenda JunkerClerk

1

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal 1 Stone Road West

Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1, chemin Stone Ouest

Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email:[email protected]

Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Email: [email protected]

STAN ERB DRAIN TOWNSHIP OF EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK

IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17, AS AMENDED: AND IN THE MATTER OF: An application to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock under Section 76 of the Drainage Act requesting permission to procure the report of an engineer for the purpose of varying the original assessments on the Stan Erb Drain. Before: Harold McNeely, Vice-Chair; Enio Sullo, Vice Chair

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

This application was considered by way of a written hearing on May 31, 2012. Background The watershed for the Stan Erb Drain straddles two municipalities: the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock and the Township of Perth East. The drain was constructed under an engineer’s report by H.M. Gibson, P. Eng. dated March 6, 1968. Due to changes in the drainage area over the years, the schedule of assessment forming part of that report and by-law is no longer workable. The Issue Should the application for permission to procure the report of an engineer be granted? The Evidence By way of a letter dated December 8, 2011, the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock gave notice to the Township of Perth East of their intent to seek permission from the Tribunal to engage an engineer to prepare a report for the purpose of varying the assessments on the Stan Erb Drain. The Township of Perth East consented to proceeding with the preparation of a report revising the Maintenance Schedule of the Stan Erb Drain, by way of a letter dated January 20, 2012. By way of a letter dated May 14, 2012, Ms. Brenda Junker, Clerk for the Municipality of East Zorra-Tavistock submitted evidence as to the changes that have taken place within the Stan Erb Drain watershed since the 1968 engineer’s report and by-law.

2

According to Ms. Junker:

The watershed for the Stan Erb Drain in the 1968 engineer’s report by H.M. Gibson, P. Eng., did not include any of the Village of Tavistock and very little of Sebastopol;

In 1974 an engineer’s report for the Tavistock Drain 1974 was prepared by K. Smart, P. Eng. which diverted waters that were formerly in the Rudy Drain into the Stan Erb Drain;

In 1995, an engineer’s report for the Shakespeare Drainage Works was prepared by R. Walton, P. Eng. which improved portions of the channel upstream of the Stan Erb Drain;

Although the 1995 engineer’s report for the Shakespeare Drainage Works incorporated the increased watershed for the Stan Erb Drain resulting from the Tavistock Drain 1974, it did not provide an updated assessment for the Stan Erb Drain; and,

In 2006, an engineer’s report for the Tavistock Drain 2006 by W. Dietrich, P. Eng. provided a secondary outlet for the Tavistock Drain into the Stan Erb Drain and added further drainage area but also did not provide an updated assessment for the Stan Erb Drain.

In support of her evidence, Ms. Junker submitted the following documents for the Tribunal’s reference and consideration:

Notice by the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock to the Township of Perth East dated December 8, 2012 of their intent to procure the report of an engineer;

Letter of consent from the Township of Perth East dated January 20, 2012, to procure the report of an engineer

1968 by-law no. 1713 and engineer’s report for the Stan Erb Drain;

Engineer’s report for the Tavistock Drain 1974;

Engineer’s report for the Shakespeare Drainage Works, 1995;

Engineer’s report for the Tavistock Municipal Drain 2006;

A drainage map for the Village of Tavistock; and,

A drainage map for the Village of Shakespeare.

The Findings The Tribunal finds that the request by the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock meets the requirements of Section 76 of the Drainage Act. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL The Tribunal grants permission to the Township of East-Zorra Township to appoint an engineer pursuant to Section 76 of the Drainage Act, to procure the report of an engineer to vary the assessments for the Stan Erb Drain.

Harold McNeely Vice-Chair Dated at Ottawa, Ontario this 1st day of June, 2012

3

TO: Mr. Dennis O’Neil Drainage Superintendent c/o Brenda Junker, Municipal Clerk Township of East Zorra-Tavistock Box 100, 90 Loveys Street Hickson, Ontario N0J 1L0 AND TO: Mr. Glen Schwendinger, CAO Township of Perth East P.O. Box 455 Milverton, Ontario N0K 1M0 AND TO: All owners of lands that were assessed or compensated in the engineer’s reports associated to the above listed drains.

2012-06-20 council agenda - ezt.caezt.ca › ... › documents_forms › agd › 2012 ›...

Documents