CITY OF FORT SASKATCHEWAN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA
Tuesday, May 15, 2018, 5:00 P.M. Lang Room - City Hall Pages
1. Call to Order
Deputy Mayor Abitoye
2. Approval of Minutes of April 17, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting 1
3. Delegations
Those individuals in attendance at the meeting will be provided with an opportunity to address Council regarding an item on the agenda, with the exception of those items for which a Public Hearing is required or has been held. Each individual will be allowed a maximum of five (5) minutes.
4. Alberta Emergency Management Agency Elected Officials Training - Follow-up 5
Shawn McKerry / Brad Ward
5. Regional Transit Smart Fare 9
Anthony Dionigi
6. Water and Wastewater Rates 14
Marley Hanrahan
7. Draft Strategic Plan 2019-22 28
John Dance
8. Confidential In-Camera Session
To discuss matters that fall within one of the exceptions to disclosure in Division 2 of Part 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP).
8.1 Growth Strategy Update, FOIP Section 20(1), Harmful to Intergovernmental Relations
9. Adjournment 1
CITY OF FORT SASKATCHEWAN MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Tuesday, April 17, 2018 - 5:00 p.m. Lang Room - City Hall
Present: Members of Council: Mayor Gale Katchur Councillor Jibs Abitoye Councillor Gordon Harris Councillor Deanna Lennox Councillor Lisa Makin Councillor Ed Sperling
Absent: Councillor Brian Kelly
Administration: Troy Fleming, City Manager John Dance, General Manager, Corporate Services Janel Smith-Duguid, General Manager, Infrastructure & Planning Brenda Rauckman, General Manager, Community & Protective Services Robert Stephenson, Acting Director, Legislative Services Jeremy Emann, Chief Financial Officer Wendy Kinsella, Director, Corporate Communications Grant Schaffer, Director, Project Management Barb Shuman, Director, Recreation Services Richard Gagnon, Director, Infrastructure Management T.J. Auer, Community Social Planning Coordinator Marley Hanrahan, Senior Infrastructure Accountant
1. Call to Order Mayor Katchur called the April 17, 2018 Committee of the Whole meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
2 April 17, 2018 Committee of the Whole Minutes Page 2
2. Approval of Minutes of March 20, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting
R114-18 MOVED BY Councillor Makin that the minutes of the March 20, 2018 Committee of the Whole meeting be adopted as presented.
In Favour (6): Mayor Katchur, Councillor Abitoye, Councillor Harris, Councillor Lennox, Councillor Makin, and Councillor Sperling
Absent (1): Councillor Kelly
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3. Delegations
None.
4. Presentation
4.1 Fort Saskatchewan Early Years Coalition
Karen Sliwkanich, Co-Chair, Fort Saskatchewan Early Years Coalition was in attendance to provide an update to the Committee of the Whole on the Province’s Community Profile Report for Alberta Early Development in Fort Saskatchewan.
5. Recreational Cannabis Overview
Robert Stephenson, Acting Director, Legislative Services and T.J. Auer, Community Social Planning Coordinator provided an update to the Committee of the Whole on the current status of cannabis legislation, details on legislation’s content, comparison of approaches with other municipalities, and the impact on City departments.
Mayor Katchur called a short recess at 6:07 p.m.
The Committee of Whole meeting reconvened at 6:14 p.m.
6. 2019 Budget Update
Jeremy Emann, Chief Financial Officer presented the Committee of the Whole with an update on the 2019 Budget.
3 April 17, 2018 Committee of the Whole Minutes Page 3
7. 10-Year Capital Plan (2018-2027)
Jeremy Emann, Chief Financial Officer and Barb Shuman, Director, Recreation presented the Committee of the Whole with the 10-Year Capital Plan (2018 - 2027).
8. Governance Review Update
John Dance, General Manager, Corporate Services presented the Committee of the Whole with an update on the recommendations contained within the Governance Review Report completed in July 2017.
9. Confidential In-Camera Session
R115-18 MOVED BY Councillor Abitoye that Council move in-camera at 7:13 p.m. to discuss the following item:
City Manager Update, FOIP Section 24(1)(a), Advice from Officials (advice, proposals, recommendations for or by a public body).
In Favour (6): Mayor Katchur, Councillor Abitoye, Councillor Harris, Councillor Lennox, Councillor Makin, and Councillor Sperling
Absent (1): Councillor Kelly
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
In-Camera Attendance:
Council: Gale Katchur, Jibs Abitoye, Gordon Harris, Deanna Lennox, Lisa Makin, and Ed Sperling
Administration: Troy Fleming, John Dance, Brenda Rauckman, Janel Smith- Duguid, and Robert Stephenson attended for the purpose of providing support for the items to be discussed.
4 April 17, 2018 Committee of the Whole Minutes Page 4
R116-18 MOVED BY Councillor Harris that Council return to open session at 7:45 p.m.
In Favour (6): Mayor Katchur, Councillor Abitoye, Councillor Harris, Councillor Lennox, Councillor Makin, and Councillor Sperling
Absent (1): Councillor Kelly
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
10. Adjournment
The Committee of the Whole meeting of April 17, 2018 adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
______Mayor
______Acting Director, Legislative Services
5
CITY OF FORT SASKATCHEWAN
Committee of the Whole - Information Report
Alberta Emergency Management Agency Elected Officials Training – Follow Up
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Mayor & Councillors with additional information about their role preparing for and responding to emergency situations, and to answer questions that arose following the March 5, 2018 Elected Officials Emergency Management presentation by Alberta Emergency Management Agency (AEMA).
Background:
On March 5, 2018, AEMA Field Officers provided Elected Officials Emergency Management Training to elected officials from Fort Saskatchewan, Strathcona County, Lamont and Bruderheim. AEMA’s training session was intended to inform Council of their role and responsibilities, but it ended before all of Council’s questions had been answered. This session is to further explain Council’s roles and responsibilities, and to answer questions that were not fully addressed on March 5th.
Protective Services Director, Brad Ward, and Fire Chief, Shawn McKerry will provide additional information to Council and answer questions Council has about emergency management in Fort Saskatchewan.
Plans/Standards/Legislation:
Alberta’s Emergency Management Act requires a local authority to prepare for emergencies, appoint an emergency advisory committee consisting of members of the local authority, and sets out the role of the local authority during an emergency situation.
Attachments:
PowerPoint handouts of the presentation
Prepared by: Brad Ward Date: May 2, 2018 Director, Protective Services
Approved by: Brenda Rauckman Date: May 3, 2018 General Manager, Community and Protective Services
Reviewed by: Troy Fleming Date: May 3, 2018 City Manager
Submitted to: Committee of the Whole Date: May 15, 2018
6 7 8 9 CITY OF FORT SASKATCHEWAN
Committee of the Whole - Information Report
Smart Fare
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to inform the Mayor and Councillors about ETS’s invitation to join the Smart Fare Program. To facilitate Edmonton’s request for a commitment to join the initiative by May 31, 2018, a decision from Council will be requested during the May 22, 2018 regular Council meeting.
Background:
Regional Context:
The City of Fort Saskatchewan is actively engaged in regional discussions, through the EMRB, for the development of its Servicing Plan. Transit is an example of a service area that could gain efficiencies and effectiveness through regionalization. Interest for a regional fare payment system has been expressed largely by the City of Edmonton, Strathcona County and City of St. Albert, with an invitation to join sent to other regional municipalities including the City of Fort Saskatchewan.
Commuter Service:
The commuter transit system linking municipalities in the region will be the focus of the Service Plan. Since 2004, Fort Saskatchewan has had an agreement with ETS, for the delivery of the commuter service to and from Edmonton.
In 2018, the City of Edmonton, the City of St. Albert and Strathcona County entered into a partnership to implement an electronic fare payment system in 2020. Smart Fare is an integrated regional fee system, allowing riders to pay one singular transit fare through a variety of payment methods. It will also make travel across the Edmonton metropolitan region easier for riders, since one account services all participating transit systems.
ETS Request:
ETS has invited surrounding municipalities with transit services to consider joining the Smart Fare Program. The City of Leduc, City of St. Albert and Strathcona County are in the program officially. The City of Spruce Grove and the Town of Beaumont will be considering the option shortly.
What is Smart Fare?
The Smart Fare Program provides convenience to transit users by integrating its fare and passes into one system throughout the region.
Smart Fare is an account-based, electronic fare payment system that allows municipalities to consider a range of progressive fare options, to improve the transit experience for many customers. Smart Fare technology is very similar to the way debit or credit cards are used in the banking network. It uses an account-based set-up, meaning the account credit stays online. If riders lose their Smart Fare card, they can replace it without losing their account credit or fare purchase. Loading the Smart Fare account is instant. Once riders add credit, they can use it right away.
10
Smart Fare May 15, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 2
Benefits include:
Seamless payment services throughout the region. No paper transfers. Pay-As-You-Go philosophy, meaning that users pay for what they used, instead of being charged a monthly or annual fee. Customers will be able to use their credit cards, debit cards, other compatible smart cards and smart devices. Ability to electronically record ridership, boarding and alighting locations and fare type.
Fort Transit believes the Smart Fare Program will benefit its users, allowing them to easily access destinations in the region in a cost effective way.
Student U-Pass represents 25% of Fort Transit’s total budget revenue in 2018. Smart Fare will determine revenue sharing for the U-Pass program for all transit providers in the region.
If the City of Fort Saskatchewan does not commit to the regional Smart Fare Program by May 31, 2018, ETS stated that the opportunity to join the Smart Fare Program could reoccur in 2 or 3 years. Administration is not recommending postponing enrollment in the program as the delay could result in lost opportunities to access regional benefits.
Plans/Standards/Legislation:
1. This subject aligns with goals one and four of the 2014 – 2017 Strategic Plan.
Position for Growth - Ensure the long-term sustainability of our community as a preferred location to live, work and play; as a regional service center; and as a gateway to Alberta’s Industrial Heartland. More specifically, the project relates to section 1.5 - Collaborate with other municipalities in the development of local and regional initiatives and marketing of the region.
Excellence in Government - Be a best-in-class, sustainable municipality that delivers high quality, open and transparent services and communications. More specifically, the project relates to section 4.3 - Continue to develop and maintain strong relationships with our neighboring municipalities and civic organizations.
2. This subject aligns the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan.
Financial Implications:
The commitment to Smart Fare requires an initial start-up fee of $100,000, to be committed by May 31, 2018.
It is anticipated that $154,000 for equipment will be required to start up the Smart Fare project.
This cost includes:
$30,000 for the integrated mapping system. $16,000 for fare validators. $96,000 for equipment procurement and installation. $12,000 for spare Smart Bus equipment.
11
Smart Fare May 15, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 3
In addition, there are also optional fees, including a Smart Fare vending machine at a cost of $70,000 and two point of sale terminals at a cost of $5,000 each.
The projected total equipment costs would be budgeted for in 2019. New transit grant funding could be used to offset a portion of the Smart Fare Program, if costs are deemed eligible.
Vix Technology will administer the Smart Fare Program. The on-going cost will equate to 4-5% of fare-box revenue, currently estimated at $9,000 annually.
The long-term financial impact is subject to change as costs are refined, agreements are reached and decisions on future transit services are made with regional partners.
Internal Impacts:
Smart Fare and Smart Bus will affect the operations of the transit department and future procurement of transit fleet. New fleet will require Smart Bus and Smart Fare technology to be equipped upon delivery. Scheduling and mapping software will be governed by the City of Edmonton. However, each municipality will still be responsible for planning its own schedules and routes. Currently, the City of Fort Saskatchewan’s transit fleet is not equipped with scheduling software so it will add benefit to have the City of Edmonton involved with this aspect of transit planning.
The City will no longer have to bear the cost of producing, delivering and monitoring its own fare media. Potentially, fare box contents will no longer have to be counted internally and deposited to the City’s financial institution multiple times weekly.
The role of frontline staff who currently sell transit fare products will be simplified. They will need to be trained to use the Smart Fare Program.
Communication Plan:
Education and engagement would be conducted on transit vehicles to ensure riders are aware of how Smart Fare technology works. There will also be communication to residents through various print and digital mediums.
Recommendation:
Administration recommends joining the Smart Fare program as a long-term strategy to a more regional and integrated transit service. Proceeding with the program means improving the customer experience, harmonizing ridership and fare data collected in the region and developing more efficient commuter connections with neighbouring municipalities.
Next Steps:
At the May 22, 2018 regular Council meeting, Administration will request a decision from Council regarding joining the Smart Fare initiative, committing $100,000 as one-time fee to join the program.
Attachments:
Smart Fare / Smart Bus Start Up Cost Breakdown
12
Smart Fare May 15, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 4
File No.:
Prepared by: Anthony Dionigi Date: April 20, 2018 Transit Supervisor
Approved by: Richard Gagnon Date: April 23, 2018 Director, Infrastructure Management
Approved by: Janel Smith-Duguid Date: May 7, 2018 General Manager, Infrastructure & Planning
Reviewed by: Troy Fleming Date: May 7, 2018 City Manager
Submitted to: Committee of the Whole Date: May 15, 2018 13 Smart Fare and Bus Project Costs - April 2018
SMART FARE / SMART BUS START-UP COST BREAKDOWN
Item Description Systems affected Total units Cost per unit Capital Operation Comments
Mandatory One-time agency Local and This amount is one-time to enter the program for each Smart Fare 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 fee commuter municipality. The fee is paid to Vix. Integrated Base Local and Smart Fare 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Mapping System commuter Local and Smart Fare Fare Validators 4 $ 4,000 $ 16,000 3 fare validators at $4K per bus. (Include one spare) commuter Equipment Local and $25K per vehicle, but could be upwards of $32K based on Smart Bus procurement & 3 $ 32,000 $ 96,000 commuter Spruce Groves estimates. Installation Smart Bus Spares Local 1 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Smart Bus Spare Equipment 4% to 5% of farebox revenue to Vix based on EDM/STA/SC participation. Fort Sask Transit's 2017 fare Local and revenue was $158,657 (this does not include U-Pass and Smart Fare Operating Cost N/A 5% $ 9,000 commuter Advertising revenue). 5% of this amount is approximately $8,000. Based on current 2018 projections, 5% could be $9,000 or higher. S-Total $ 154,000 $ 109,000
Optional Vending machine Local and (Note this pricing may be subject to change if we are Smart Fare 1 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 (optional) commuter unable to add to the existing order) Point of Sale Local and $5K per terminal. May want 2 Smart Fare 2 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 Terminal (optional) commuter Assuming one at DCC and at City Hall.
Fare Enforcement / Local and Paratransit Fare Validator / Hand Held Fare Enfocrement Smart Fare Paratransit 0 $ 2,500 $ - commuter Device not required. Validator (optional) S-Total $ 80,000
Total $ 234,000 $ 109,000 14
CITY OF FORT SASKATCHEWAN
Committee of the Whole - Information Report
Water and Wastewater Rates
Purpose:
Utility rate design is a function of many diverse and sometimes competing objectives. The purpose of this report is to provide the Mayor and Councillors with information about the current water and wastewater rate structure, begin a discussion on philosophy for rate setting, and to present a potential plan to update the rates through the 2019 budget process.
Background:
User fees such as utility rates generate revenue to fund the utilities’ operating and capital costs. They can provide a stable and reliable revenue source which allows municipalities to plan for the long term. User fee design allows for municipalities to balance their core objectives, such as revenue stability, water conservation, and affordability.
The City’s current water and wastewater rate structure is a multi-rate structure with both a fixed portion and volumetric or consumption portion. The fixed rate covers a portion of the infrastructure costs (transfers to reserve for capital replacement and debenture payments) and the consumption rate covers the remaining portion of infrastructure costs, all operating costs, and the cost of purchasing water/treating wastewater from the regional commissions. The higher consumption rate was designed to encourage water conservation, but can result in unpredictable revenues. Relying heavily on consumption revenue can potentially result in a revenue shortfall if consumption demand decreases.
Over the last 10 years, the City’s yearly total per capita water consumption has fallen 26%, from 354 litres per person per day in 2008 to 261 in 2017. The City is well below the Alberta average which, last reported by Statistics Canada in 2015, was 364 litres per person per day.
Population and Per Capita Water Consumption 500 30,000 450 25,000 400 350 20,000 300 250 15,000
200 Population 10,000 150 100 5,000
50 Per Capita Consumption Per day) per (litres - - 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Fort Sask Total Per Capita Consumption Alberta Average Total Per Capita Consumption Fort Sask Population
Source: Statistics Canada 2010 & 2011 Municipal Water Use Report and Statistics Canada 2011, 2013, & 2015 Potable Water Use By Sector and Average Daily Use for Canada, Provinces and Territories 15
Water and Wastewater Rates May 15, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 2
The AUMA’s 2014 Urban Municipal Water Conservation, Efficiency and Productivity Plan – Targets and Actions for the Urban Municipal Sector sets out targets to achieve an overall goal that “Alberta’s urban municipal sector is recognized as a significant contributor to safeguarding the reliability of our water supplies, the stewardship of our aquatic ecosystems, and the health and well-being of Albertans, as set out in the provincial Water for Life Strategy1.” The City’s 2017 statistics in comparison to these targets were:
Fort Saskatchewan AUMA Target 2017 Residential Water Use 195 litres/person/day 157 litres/person/day
Total Water Use 341 litres/person/day 261 litres/person/day
“Unaccounted for” water as a 10% 8% percentage of total water use
These statistics reflect the success of conservation programs and efforts made by both the residents and the City. Relying on a higher consumption rate, in part, has helped reduce consumption. Revenues can become highly unpredictable though due to increases in conservation efforts and changes in demand. The multi-rate structure the City currently uses is the best way to balance the objectives of achieving full cost recovery while also encouraging water conservation2.
The fixed portion of the rate provides stable and predictable revenues which allows the City to plan for maintenance and replacement of its infrastructure and to ensure the financial sustainability of the system.
The fixed revenue the City collects covers approximately 33% of capital replacement and debenture costs. To achieve financial sustainability and to ensure a reliable revenue source for investment in our infrastructure, administration is recommending the fixed portion of the rate be updated over the next 3 years to cover 100% of these costs.
Plans/Standards/Legislation:
2014-2017 Strategic Plan - Goal One: Position for Growth and Goal Four: Excellence in Government
Community Sustainability Plan 2014 Update – UR3 Develop an infrastructure long range capital plan. This has been completed and with the proposed changes to the rate structure, it will assist with ensuring there is adequate funding for the plan.
My Fort, My city, My say - Creating and maintaining infrastructure to meet needs of the community including roads, water, sewer, transit, parks, trails, recreation, and community amenities garnered 61.4% of responses to the question “What should the focus of the City of Fort Saskatchewan be over the next four years?”
1 Source: AUMA Water Conservation, Efficiency and Productivity Plan (2014) 2 Source: Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission report Only the Pipes Should Be Hidden: Best practices for pricing and improving municipal water and wastewater services (September 2017) 16
Water and Wastewater Rates May 15, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 3
Financial Implications:
The combined water and wastewater fixed rate for 2018 is $6.79 and covers 33% of capital replacement and debenture costs. Administration is recommending that over the next 3 years, the fixed rate be increased to cover 100% of these costs. This will also have an impact on the consumption rate as well.
Combined Water and Wastewater Charges
Infrastructure Cost Coverage Current Through the Fixed Rate 33% 50% 75% 100% Fixed Rate Fixed Monthly Charge $6.79 $11.01 $17.21 $22.67 Rate Change (%) 62.2% 56.3% 31.7% Rate Change ($) $4.22 $6.19 $5.46 Consumption Rate Charge per cubic meter ($/m3) $4.72 $4.45 $4.06 $3.72 Rate Change (%) -5.6% -8.7% -8.4% Rate Change ($) $(0.27) $(0.39) $(0.34)
In comparing the 2018 rates to each scenario, the total water and wastewater charges for an average resident with a 5/8” meter using 14m3 per month would increase an estimated $1.97 per month when the fixed rate is updated to cover 100% of the capital costs.
33% 50% 75% 100% Capital Capital Capital Capital Coverage Coverage Coverage Coverage Fixed Charge $6.79 $11.01 $17.21 $22.67 Consumption Charge $66.02 $62.30 $56.89 $52.10 Total Monthly Charge $72.80 $73.31 $74.10 $74.77
The effect on the fixed charges for all meter sizes is:
Monthly Fixed Water and Wastewater Current Charges Number of Percentage 33% 50% 75% 100% Meter Size Connections of Total Capital Capital Capital Capital 5/8" Meter 10,594 97.9% $ 6.79 $ 11.01 $ 17.21 $ 22.67 3/4" Meter 122 1.1% $ 8.44 $ 12.99 $ 20.32 $ 26.46 1" Meter 59 0.5% $ 12.65 $ 18.03 $ 28.23 $ 36.12 1.5" to 2" Meter 38 0.4% $ 41.54 $ 52.56 $ 82.50 $ 102.39 2.5" to 3" Meter 8 0.1% $ 89.69 $ 110.12 $ 172.96 $ 212.83 4" Meter 1 0.0% $ 157.09 $ 190.69 $ 299.59 $ 367.44 6" to 8" Meter 2 0.0% $ 349.67 $ 420.92 $ 661.41 $ 809.19
17
Water and Wastewater Rates May 15, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 4
Alternatives:
Some alternatives Administration can examine further are: A longer term phased in approach for achieving 100% capital coverage with the fixed rate. Examining different rate structures such as increasing block consumption rates to reduce the impact on lower consumption users.
Communication Plan:
This change will be communicated through the 2019-2021 budget processes.
Next Steps:
The 2019 rates will be finalized through fees and charges in the budget process and will be presented to Council for adoption in late 2018.
Attachments:
Canada's Ecofiscal Commission Report: Only the Pipes Should be Hidden Executive Summary
File No.:
Prepared by: Marley Hanrahan Date: May 1, 2018 Senior Infrastructure Accountant
Approved by: Janel Smith-Duguid Date: May 8, 2018 General Manager, Infrastructure & Planning
Reviewed by: Troy Fleming Date: May 8, 2018 City Manager
Submitted to: Committee of the Whole Date: May 15, 2018
18
ONLY THE PIPES SHOULD BE HIDDEN
Best practices for pricing and improving municipal water and wastewater services September 2017 19
CANADA’S ECOFISCAL COMMISSION WHO WE ARE A group of independent, policy-minded Canadian economists working together to align Canada’s economic and environmental aspirations. We believe this is both possible and critical for our country’s continuing prosperity. Our Advisory Board comprises prominent Canadian leaders from across the political spectrum. We represent diferent regions, philosophies, and perspectives from across the country. But on this we agree: ecofiscal solutions are essential to Canada’s future.
OUR VISION OUR MISSION A thriving economy underpinned by clean To identify and promote practical fiscal air, land, and water for the benefit of all solutions for Canada that spark the innovation Canadians, now and in the future. required for increased economic and environmental prosperity.
ONLY THE PIPES SHOULD BE HIDDEN I 20
OUR RESEARCH THEMES
Livable Cities Climate and Energy Water Trafic congestion, overflowing From carbon pricing to What is the value of the landfills, and urban sprawl— energy subsidies, we analyze services that provide clean these are some of the biggest the policy opportunities water? We examine new challenges facing Canadian and challenges defining Canadian policy solutions cities. We look at how new Canada’s climate and for water pollution, policies can make urban life energy landscape today. over-consumption, and more livable. infrastructure.
For more information about the Commission, visit Ecofiscal.ca
II 21 A REPORT AUTHORED BY CANADA’S ECOFISCAL COMMISSION
Chris Ragan, Chair Mel Cappe Glen Hodgson McGill University University of Toronto Conference Board of Canada Elizabeth Beale Bev Dahlby Richard Lipsey Economist University of Calgary Simon Fraser University Paul Boothe Don Drummond Nancy Olewiler Institute for Competitiveness Queen’s University Simon Fraser University and Prosperity Stewart Elgie France St-Hilaire University of Ottawa Institute for Research on Public Policy
This report is a consensus document representing the views of the Ecofiscal Commissioners. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations with which they are afiliated.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission acknowledges the advice and insights provided by our Advisory Board:
Elyse Allan Karen Clarke-Whistler Michael Harcourt Preston Manning Lorne Trottier Dominic Barton Jim Dinning Bruce Lourie Paul Martin Annette Verschuren Gordon Campbell Peter Gilgan Janice MacKinnon Peter Robinson Steve Williams Jean Charest
We also acknowledge the contributions to this report from the Commission’s staf: Jonathan Arnold, Antonietta Ballerini, Dale Beugin, Jason Dion, Annette Dubreuil, Brendan Frank, and Alexandra Gair. We thank Dr. Diane Dupont at Brock University, Dr. Harry Kitchen at Trent University, and Dr. Lindsay Tedds at the University of Victoria for their valuable comments on a preliminary draf of the report. Finally, we extend our gratitude to McGill University and the University of Ottawa for their continued support of the Commission.
Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission recognizes the generous contributions of the following funders and supporters:
dation fami Fon liale Trottier F n amily Foundatio
ONLY THE PIPES SHOULD BE HIDDEN III 22
DEDICATION
This report is dedicated in memory of Dr. Steven Renzetti, one of Canada’s foremost environmental economists. Steven had a deep commitment to scholarly excellence and was an internationally renowned expert on water pricing and conservation. Through countless journal articles, books, and columns, Steven helped improve Canadian water policy in immeasurable ways. His research was grounded by an unwavering sense of humility and generosity; and despite his many commitments, he was ever approachable.
We are grateful to have received Steven's feedback on an earlier version of this report. His research laid much of the groundwork for our analysis, and we are truly thankful for his contributions. He will be dearly missed.
EXPERT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We also want to acknowledge the dedicated support and guidance from our Expert Advisory Committee, which was created to help ground the report’s analysis and findings. It includes municipal water experts from across the country—from municipal water utilities, water and wastewater associations, and the private sector.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their time and insights:
Bernadette Conant Karen Gasmo Bu Lam Chief Executive Oficer, Executive Director, Transportation Manager, Municipal Programs, Canadian Water Network and Utilities, City of Regina Canadian Water Network Catherine Dallaire Robert Haller John Lucas Co-chair, Infrastructure Management Executive Director, Canadian Water and Director, Water and Wastewater, Committee, British Columbia Water Wastewater Association City of London and Waste Association Mike Homenuke Andrew Niblock Manager, Infrastructure Advisory, Co-chair, Infrastructure Management Director, Environmental Services, KPMG Canada Committee, British Columbia Water City of St. John’s and Waste Association Marcus Firman Neil Thomas President, Ontario Water Works Association Utility Management Sector Leader, Senior Water and Sewer Engineer, Kerr Wood Leidal City of Fredericton Director, Water and Wastewater Services, The District Municipality of Muskoka
The views and opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Committee members nor their afiliated organizations. Any potential errors in this report are attributable to Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission and not the Expert Advisory Committee.
IV 23
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Picture a somewhat typical Canadian town. Its residents ofen visit the nearby lake to swim, boat, and fish. The lake also supplies drinking water to the local families and businesses. Fresh water seems plentiful, though hot and dry weather during the summer months has required the local council to limit watering lawns and washing cars. Further, beach closures and fishing restrictions seem to be a new normal for a few weeks each summer due to poor water quality.
The municipality is a growing and prosperous hub, a significant This summary explains why user fees matter and provides our engine of economic activity in the region. Yet keeping up with growing bottom-line guidance to policy-makers. For a deeper look at the infrastructure demands has been a challenge for the local government. engineering, economics, and policy details of user fees for water Recent investments have helped, but a substantial infrastructure gap and wastewater services, including five comprehensive case studies, persists. Meanwhile, given the town’s growing population and water see the full report. use, upgrades to the aging wastewater treatment plant are required to keep the local lake clean and safe. We take water and wastewater services for granted What might tie these threads together? Perhaps a surprising answer: Canadians value clean water. For many of us, water is a core part of user fees for water and wastewater services. our national identity, and we take great pride in Canada having one of the largest supplies of renewable fresh water on the planet. Most User fees make economic and environmental sense Canadians have access to world-class water services. User fees might sound technical and boring. Yet when we look Despite our vast endowment of fresh water, many local ecosystems deeper, the story of user fees for water and wastewater is important are becoming overdrawn or polluted—particularly in Canada’s for thousands of Canadian municipalities. User fees can link most densely populated areas. Contrary to popular belief, our water engineered systems and natural freshwater assets with how we is becoming an increasingly scarce resource. And providing and use and manage these assets in fiscally and environmentally maintaining clean water comes at a considerable cost. sustainable ways. The infrastructure that provides and treats our water has Many Canadian municipalities have already taken significant steps tremendous value. It underpins all the economic activity associated toward better managing their water and wastewater services through with cities and towns. These infrastructure assets are also closely user fees. Yet opportunities remain to go even further, particularly in linked to the value of our natural freshwater assets, such as jurisdictions still relying on other financing approaches. lakes, rivers, and aquifers. When managed sustainably, water and
ONLY THE PIPES SHOULD BE HIDDEN V 24 Executive Summary
wastewater systems can provide valuable services to our economy Well-designed user fees can improve conservation, for future generations. fund infrastructure, and protect water quality Yet we ofen take these assets—the sophisticated engineering When compared with other revenue tools, user fees are the best systems as well as the natural freshwater assets—for granted. way to finance our water and wastewater systems. If designed When we run the tap, flush the toilet, or buy goods and services well, they can align the price of using water services with the full supported by freshwater, how ofen do we consider the reservoirs, cost of providing them. They generate revenue to fund essential pipes, water-treatment plants, and natural ecosystems on which infrastructure and even the protection of natural assets. They also those actions depend? create an incentive to use water more carefully, which reduces utilities’ operating and capital costs. The price we pay for water services doesn’t reflect User fees also have other benefits. Unlike other revenue tools, the full cost of providing them they can help water utilities become financially self-suficient. Relative to other countries, Canadians pay very low prices for water This allows them to set prices that align with their core objectives and wastewater services. So perhaps it is unsurprising that we take and make more informed decisions about long-term capital and our most precious natural resource for granted. With few exceptions, operational planning. the price charged on our monthly or quarterly water bills does not reflect the true cost of providing the service, thus hiding its true value. Well-designed user fees can ensure that clean water Charging less than the full cost of water and wastewater services is afordable for low-income households has important implications for municipalities. First, it poses risks to Although fees for water and wastewater services represent a very freshwater supplies. We typically consume more water when it is small portion of household budgets, concerns over the afordability cheaper (or unpriced), which contributes to wasteful consumption of water—especially for low-income families—are important. Yet and water shortages. Consuming more water also results in more user fees can be designed to ensure that everyone has access wastewater that requires expensive treatment. Overuse of the to clean water. Municipalities can, for example, provide a basic system means a heavier burden on both natural water assets and allotment of water to all users or can provide targeted cash rebates engineered infrastructure. to households. Such adjustments can improve fairness while Charging less than the full cost has also contributed to achieving the other core objectives. infrastructure gaps. Some municipalities have old or insuficient infrastructure because their water revenues do not cover the full Municipalities can customize their approach based costs of the services. In turn, they lack the resources to build and on their own context maintain their systems. This can result in leaky or ineficient pipes, Many Canadian municipalities face common challenges when it placing more stress on the overall system. Another possibility is comes to the provision of water and wastewater services. At the inadequate water or wastewater treatment. same time, municipalities face local issues that are unique. Infrastructure gaps also pose direct risks for water quality. We describe 10 best practices for municipalities designing water With few exceptions, water needs to be treated before we can drink and wastewater user fees. Many municipalities have already taken it, which ofen requires expensive, sophisticated technologies. If great strides toward implementing these best practices; others still treatment infrastructure fails, it can result in illness or even death. have room to improve. While each best practice may not apply to Similarly, wastewater treatment plants minimize the risks associated each Canadian municipality, the overall collection provides a useful with releasing harmful wastewater into surrounding watersheds. roadmap for improving performance across the country. When under-treated, wastewater can pollute our waterways, leading to beach closures or illness. BEST PRACTICE #1 Canadian municipalities have made significant progress on each Installing water meters for all residential of these challenges in recent years. And the relative importance and commercial users of these challenges varies across diferent municipalities. Yet in Water meters have proven benefits. Metering allows water utilities all cases, ensuring that our water and wastewater systems are to measure water demand over time and across diferent users— sustainably managed is a continuous process. This report draws households, businesses, and institutions. This information allows on success stories in Canadian municipalities, while highlighting water utilities to quickly and more accurately identify leaks and opportunities for further improvement. improve eficiency, and it also helps with long-term planning.
VI 25 Executive Summary
Water meters are also necessary for implementing volume-based hand, helped reduce consumption and improve system eficiencies. (“volumetric”) user fees. Widespread metering for all households On the other hand, such a heavy reliance on volumetric user fees and businesses maximizes these benefits. made revenues highly unpredictable due to gains in conservation For example, Ottawa installed smart meters for all its households and other changes in demand. This process helped identify a critical in 2011, which gives the city high-resolution data on the time and issue in terms of recovering costs. use of water. This allows the city to charge users in part based on their levels of water use, but also to quickly identify and fix leaks, BEST PRACTICE #4: and improve infrastructure planning. Identifying the funding gap and developing a full-cost-recovery strategy BEST PRACTICE #2: With an asset-management plan in place and a comprehensive Estimating all private and social costs understanding of current and likely future revenues, municipalities using a lifecycle approach can estimate their funding gap. Municipalities that have already Before a municipality can develop a strategy to recover its full costs, it made progress toward fully recovering their costs with user fees must understand the nature of these costs. This requires water utilities are likely to have smaller gaps. By contrast, the gap will be larger to develop a comprehensive asset-management plan. At a minimum, in communities with infrastructure investment backlogs or where these plans should consider all the private costs (i.e., the costs borne future infrastructure costs are expected to increase dramatically. by the water utility) associated with engineered infrastructure: Gibsons, British Columbia, recently completed 25-year and operating, maintenance, and administration costs; research and 100-year plans for maintaining and replacing its infrastructure. development expenditures; existing and future capital costs; historical These plans informed a series of future rate increases. underinvestment; and outstanding debt obligations. When possible, asset-management plans should also consider social costs (i.e., the BEST PRACTICE #5: costs borne by society), such as the cost of protecting the natural Relying on user fees to help close the funding gap assets that are the ultimate source of our water. Of all the diferent financing instruments, user fees are the most Unlike any other Canadian municipality, Gibsons, British flexible and practical revenue tool available to municipal water Columbia, is pushing to include natural ecosystems within the utilities. User fees can recover the full spectrum of private and valuation of its infrastructure. If formalized, the economic value of social costs. If well designed, they can provide a clear price its pristine aquifer would be treated like any other asset with an signal to encourage water conservation, especially when estimable value. The costs of protecting its aquifer—or the costs households and businesses have regular feedback on their of degrading it—would then be included within its cost- recovery consumption and can see how reducing their water use can save framework. A significant obstacle to this practice exists, however: them money. User fees can also provide a stable and reliable national accounting standards set by the Public Sector Accounting revenue source, allowing municipalities to plan for the long term. Board currently prevent municipalities from including natural Industry organizations, governments, and academics recommend assets in their audited financial statements. and support this approach. The City of Montréal highlights a significant opportunity for BEST PRACTICE #3: improvement: it is the only large Canadian city that does not Estimating existing and future revenues charge user fees for its water and wastewater services. Despite from all sources major improvements over the past decade, such as upgrades to Asset management is only one half of developing a full-cost- its aquaduct system, Montréal’s water and wastewater system is recovery strategy. The other half is determining existing and likely among the oldest in the country. Water meters are being installed future revenues. This requires looking at all sources of revenue, on industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings; however, including user fees, development fees, fire-protection charges, nearly all households remain unmetered, which is a clear obstacle property taxes, and government grants. to the introduction of volumetric user fees. Widespread metering Forecasting revenues was a first step in the adjustments that the and the adoption of user fees could help improve financial and City of Ottawa made to its water and wastewater fees. Until recently, environmental outcomes. the city relied almost exclusively on volumetric fees, which, on one
ONLY THE PIPES SHOULD BE HIDDEN VII 26 Executive Summary
BEST PRACTICE #6: BEST PRACTICE #9: Using a multi-rate structure to achieve Making adjustments over time—in a predictable multiple objectives and transparent way A multi-part user fee is the best way to balance the objectives of User fees can be adjusted over time, as conditions change. The best encouraging water conservation and achieving full-cost recovery. rate structure today may not be the best structure in the future. Events The fixed portion allows utilities to recoup some of their fixed costs such as higher-than-forecasted reductions in water demand or an and provides stable and predictable revenues. The volumetric economic downturn necessitate re-evaluating water rates to mesh portion can recover variable costs and maintain a price signal to with the changing context. As a best practice, water and wastewater drive conservation. rates should be reviewed annually and adjusted accordingly. The City of Ottawa recently shifed toward such a model in At the same time, a predictable and transparent process for order to ensure it could recover costs. It uses a rate structure that adjusting the rate structure can help individuals and businesses combines volumetric and fixed pricing to both recover costs and plan over time. Sudden changes in rates can hinder planning but encourage households and businesses to reduce their water use. also create vocal opposition. Similarly, keeping the rate structure simple can make it easier for water users to understand and BEST PRACTICE #7: respond to the price signal. Tailoring rates to the local context Afer completing its comprehensive asset-management plan, the Designing user fees to mesh with local context helps ensure that they Town of Gibsons implemented a series of rate increases to close its are cost-efective and environmentally sustainable. Municipalities can funding gap. The goal is to fully close its funding gap by 2024, afer tailor rates for diferent user classes based on water demand, location, which rate increases will be limited to the overall rate of inflation, required infrastructure, new developments, and type of use, ensuring approximately 2% annually. that user fees more accurately reflect the costs that each type of user imposes on the system. They can also tailor rates to address local BEST PRACTICE #10: environmental pressures. Complementing user fees with other tools, The District of Tofino, British Columbia, is prone to water especially for small municipalities shortages in summer—due to the natural weather cycle as well Relying on user fees as the primary tool for improving the financial as the inflow of seasonal tourists. In response to historical and environmental sustainability of municipal water and wastewater shortages, it charges higher volumetric prices for water between systems can help achieve economic and environmental objectives. April and September. Other tools, however, can be valuable complements to user fees. For example, municipalities can provide better information to BEST PRACTICE #8: water users through more frequent bills or even real-time feedback Integrating relief for low-income water users on their use, facilitated by adopting advanced metering technology. Ensuring water remains afordable, particularly for low-income The recent federal regulations for treating wastewater set mandatory households, is a key policy challenge. Two approaches can ensure minimum standards for efluent quality. Similarly, provincial that low-income households have afordable access to water: regulations set minimum standards for how municipalities protect • Municipalities can provide a basic allotment of water within the and treat drinking water. In some circumstances, grants from federal fixed portion of the user fee. Within this allotted amount, the cost and provincial governments may have a useful role to play. to households for consuming one additional litre of water is zero. The City of St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, expects • Municipalities can provide low-income households with federal and provincial grants to finance a large share of its long- assistance on their water bills. With this approach, all water term capital plan. This highlights both the opportunities and the users—regardless of income—pay the full amount of user challenges of relying on other financing tools. The city is reeling from fees upfront. an economic downturn and may struggle to make upgrades in the The Town of Battleford, Saskatchewan, employs the first absence of outside assistance. Over time, however, relying on grants approach. Each quarter, it includes a basic allotment of 30 can create barriers to increasing future user fees, as households cubic metres included within its fixed rate of $135. Daily, this is may become accustomed to artificially low rates. This reliance limits approximately 330 litres per household at a cost of about $1.50. the self-suficiency and autonomy of the municipality and may also reduce incentives for conservation.
VIII 27 Executive Summary
Complementary policies may be particularly important for Municipal user fees are one part of a much small municipalities, as they face several constraints that larger broader set of water policy issues municipalities do not. Infrastructure in small municipalities is Municipal water and wastewater systems face significant generally older and in greater need of repair. Smaller municipalities challenges moving forward, and well-designed user fees are may have less financial capacity to make necessary infrastructure a key part of the solution. investments, or may lack the managerial and technical capacity But despite their importance, municipal water and wastewater required for integrated and robust long-term planning. In these systems comprise a small part of the entire water system. cases, performance-based grants from federal and provincial Also important are the issues that this report does not discuss, governments can help small municipalities lay the groundwork for including the value of water as a resource, water access in First moving toward full-cost recovery through user fees. Nations communities, pollution from non-point sources, and Reliable and timely information is always needed for the other issues regarding water quality and quantity. development of sound economic and environmental policy. Tackling these issues goes far beyond the scope of municipal For the efective design of user fees for municipal water and water systems. It requires rigorous, integrated, and multi-disciplinary wastewater services, detailed data on water use is essential. One research and a broader dialogue about how we manage and value current challenge for improvements in Canadian water policy is water as a society. The Ecofiscal Commission will explore some of that a broad collection of water-related data, once gathered in a these issues in future reports. systematic manner by Environment and Climate Change Canada, To start this complex conversation, however, this report has has been discontinued. focused on municipal user fees—one crucial tool for aligning water’s price with its true value and helping us manage our most precious Recommendations for a path forward for water natural resource. Water and wastewater services might be largely and wastewater user fees in Canada hidden, but the price we pay for them should be in plain sight. Drawing on these 10 best practices, we make six recommendations with the aim of improving the financial and environmental sustainability of our country’s water and wastewater systems:
Municipalities should rely on multi-rate user fees to recover 1 costs and encourage conservation. All municipalities should develop an asset-management 2 plan and full-cost-recovery strategy. Municipalities should include natural assets within their 3 asset-management and cost-recovery strategies. The Public Sector Accounting Board should identify ways to 4 broaden the financial framework to include natural assets. Provincial and federal governments should encourage 5 municipalities to adopt the best practices described in this report.
The federal government should reinstate the Municipal 6 Water and Wastewater Survey.
ONLY THE PIPES SHOULD BE HIDDEN IX 28
CITY OF FORT SASKATCHEWAN
Committee of the Whole - Information Report
Draft Strategic Plan 2019-22
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Draft Strategic Plan 2019-22 for Committee of the Whole review and feedback.
Background:
The current Strategic Plan covers the period 2014-2017 and outlines the steps the City took in those four years towards achieving the vision of the City. Following the election in October 2017, Council met to establish 2018 priorities that would provide focus for the organization in 2018 and allow sufficient time and community engagement for development of a new four year Strategic Plan to guide the City for 2019-2022.
A comprehensive public engagement My Fort, My city, My say was undertaken in November and December 2017 to assist Council in the development of the new Strategic Plan for the period 2019-2022. The purpose of this phase of public engagement was to validate the City’s existing vision, better understand why residents and businesses choose Fort Saskatchewan, as well as gather input on what the priorities should be for the next four years. The questionnaire received 2,313 responses from the community.
On March 1 and 6, 2018 Council met for the purposes of strategic planning and the development of the next four year focus and priorities. The draft document presented is reflective of the strategic planning sessions held by Council, community engagement and organizational projects.
Next Steps:
Following the Committee of the Whole meeting any necessary revisions will be made to the draft Strategic Plan prior to presenting at regular Council meeting. The intent is that the final Strategic Plan will then be brought forward to Council for review and approval in June of 2018.
Attachments:
Draft Strategic Plan 2019-22
File No.:
Prepared by: John Dance Date: May 2, 2018 General Manager, Corporate Services
Approved by: Troy Fleming Date: May 3, 2018 City Manager
Submitted to: Committee of the Whole Date: May 15, 2018
29
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN 2019 – 2022 May 15, 2018
30
Engaged People, Thriving Community
Fort Saskatchewan has a proud heritage and the people and events of our past have left their imprints upon the region. From the Indigenous peoples to the industries of today, the people of Fort Saskatchewan built a community through ingenuity and hard work. Easy access to the river provided a transportation route for the early explorers and fur traders who passed through, but those who stayed learned to make a living in a frequently harsh environment. Although the area’s geology provided the foundation for settlement and industrial development, it is the spirit and resourcefulness of the people who have made Fort Saskatchewan what it is today.
That ingenuity and hard work is driving us still. Record-setting growth and access to quality services and facilities, coupled with our small-town feel and rich history, makes Fort Saskatchewan a preferred place to live and do business.
It is against this backdrop that our Community Sustainability Plan was developed reflecting the vision of our citizens for our community to the year 2040.
The 2019 – 2022 Strategic Plan is built upon the seven sustainability principles identified in our Community Sustainability Plan, which articulate what we value in a sustainable future:
A Welcoming Community
A Community with Spirit
Stewardship of the Environment
Using Our Resources Wisely
A Responsive Economy
A Complete Community
A Community Designed for People
The following pages outline our plan and the steps we will take over the next four years towards achieving the vision of our City.
1
31
Our Community Vision
In 2040…
We are a welcoming, compassionate City.
We are a friendly, multi-generational community and there is a strong sense of pride and ownership in what we have accomplished together.
As a community, we are stewards of the environment and are committed to using our resources wisely.
We have a deeply rooted respect for our place and celebrate the river valley.
The Fort is a leader in sustainable eco-industrial development with a flourishing local economy.
We support every aspect of life in Fort Saskatchewan from local business to social services.
We know our history, and have a dynamic vision for our future.
Arts, recreation and culture thrive.
Downtown is the heart of the community; it is a vibrant destination for business or play and an attractive place to live.
Fort Saskatchewan is home with a small-town feeling at heart and where a strong sense of community thrives.
My Fort: Engaged People, Thriving Community
2
32
OUR MISSION
Working together to create a sustainable and thriving community through exemplary leadership and management.
OUR CORE VALUES
Our commitment to each other and to our citizens
LEADERSHIP – Take ownership in achieving results INNOVATION – Embrace new ways of doing things SERVICE EXCELLENCE – Deliver “WOW” service to our community FUN – Enjoy what we do and bring passion to our work
OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Just as our values are reflected in everything we do, our decisions and actions are aligned with the following guiding principles.
CONTINUOUS We constantly look for ways to improve our services, refining IMPROVEMENT our daily practices, keeping the leading edge in sight and being open to change.
COLLABORATION We work collaboratively with our colleagues, residents, partners, and stakeholders.
STRATEGIC We use a strategic and forward thinking mindset and THINKING consider the impact of decisions on others.
STEWARDSHIP We are good stewards of our community’s resources, managing costs and investing for the future.
3
33
Strategic Planning Framework
Long Term – Community Aspirations & Community Sustainability Plan Sustainability Principles Fort Saskatchewan Vision 2040
Medium Term – Priorities & Focus Strategic Plan 2019-2022
Short/Medium Term – Work Planning Department Planning Documents & Activities Business Plans Master Plans / Studies
Operating Budget Capital Budget
Fort Saskatchewan’s future will continue to involve change – change in population, economy and the services provided by the city. Our Strategic Plan provides direction to make informed decisions, sets priorities, focuses resource allocation and addresses strategic issues facing the municipality, now and into the future. The Strategic Plan also serves as the foundation on which department business plans, master plans and budgets are developed and approved.
4
34
Strategic Goals To 2040
Strategic goals are higher order objectives that must be accomplished for success of the vision; goals emphasize specific areas of focus over four years.
Outcomes are a description of the end result of what will occur when a goal is reached.
Strategic initiatives are higher level actions that move us toward the achievement of a goal.
Performance measures are indicators to assess if organization has completed its planned work or met its goals.
Managing Our Growth
Operational Excellence
A Welcoming and Caring Community
Effective and Efficient Municipal Infrastructure
5
35
Managing Our Growth
GOAL
Strategically plan, prepare and manage responsible and sustainable growth for our residents and businesses.
OUTCOME
Excellence in planning and smart land use has balanced quality of life, sustainability and economic development that has shaped how our community has grown to maintain its small- town feeling at heart and where a strong sense of community thrives.
STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
Facilitate greater understanding with Council and the general public on how our City can grow and how our neighbourhoods can be designed
Develop and implement a strategy to prepare for growth based on results of the Fort Saskatchewan Growth Study (2015) and negotiations with Strathcona County
Develop land use and servicing plans for preferred growth strategy area
Review of Municipal Development Plan and subsequent planning and engineering documents
Refresh of Land Use Bylaw – (2019 and 2021)
Development of land management strategy for corporate property acquisition and dispensation
Ongoing assessment of Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Board growth objectives
Update the approach to downtown redevelopment
Actively participate in the initiatives of Alberta Industrial Heartland Association, Edmonton Global and other regional economic initiatives
Ensure strong business retention, support and attraction strategies and programs are in place to retain and grow business and industry
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - To be determined; examples are below
Housing mix, density targets
Non-residential assessment base, tax rate impacts/tax rate ratio
6
36 Operational Excellence
GOAL
Continuous improvement; constantly looking for ways to improve our services through planning, innovation and collaboration.
OUTCOME
Problem solving, collaboration and leadership has fostered ongoing improvements focusing on our customers’ needs enabling positive change to ensure service delivery is efficient and effective and can be delivered on a sustainable basis.
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Ensure four year department business plans are in place aligned with strategic priorities and operating and capital budget processes
Continue refinement of budget processes and supporting budget tools; including 3 Year Operating Plans and 10 Year Capital Plans
Ongoing development and refinement of the City’s asset management program
Ongoing program and service level reviews utilizing the approved review framework
Continued refinement and implementation of a long term financial sustainability plan
Continue implementation of health and safety program and procedures in alignment with new provincial regulations and leading practices
Continue organization-wide focus on customer service and innovation
Enhance public engagement and communication where public is encouraged to be involved
Continue ongoing policy and bylaw review to guide actions and minimize risk
Continue enhancements to water billing and transmission programs
Ensure programs are in place to support corporate culture and values, staff retention/attraction, leadership, and subject matter learning
Continue to develop and maintain strong relationships with our neighbouring municipalities and civic organizations
Development of advocacy strategy to direct and strengthen the City’s message when addressing policies and issues with other levels of government, agencies, or regional neighbours; including provincial/federal grants, regional transportation, emergency medical services/co-responses, and community spaces/school planning
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - To be determined; examples are below
Financial position – net financial assets (net debt), cash and investment balances, long term debt, reserve balance to optimal
Staff overall engagement index, permanent employee voluntary turnover rate, short term (less than 12 months) voluntary turnover rate
Expenditure Budget Variance (budgeted expenses versus actual expenses)
7
37
A Welcoming and Caring Community
GOAL
Support diverse community needs to create a complete community for all ages and incomes where everyone, regardless of circumstance is able to experience all the City has to offer.
OUTCOME
Residents live in vibrant and inclusive communities that foster personal commitment, connectedness and a sense of belonging where individual differences are valued and respected.
STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
Undertake a collaborative approach to addressing community needs through Building Bridges and coordinated partnerships with local agencies and organizations
Follow the Strong Community Strategy as a guiding document to address the priorities of the community as identified through Building Bridges
Promote awareness of and involvement in community events and programs
Develop strategies and advocate for a variety of housing options integrated throughout the community to serve the needs of residents
Utilize data, studies and community engagement to better understand community social issues and needs and community services gaps
Facilitate neighbourhood and community building programs and remove barriers to community initiatives to encourage connections to neighbours and further develop community
Build community awareness of social issues to facilitate social inclusion and social support networks
Ensure a continuum of social supports, education, and resources are available that evolve to meet changing community needs
Implement a priority based City policy and program for non-profit organization grants
Develop volunteer engagement strategies to assist with enhancing capacity, recruitment, and retention
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - To be determined; examples are below
Neighbourhood Incentive Program measure
Housing options measure
8
38
Effective and Efficient Municipal Infrastructure
GOAL
Strategically manage, invest, and plan for sustainable municipal infrastructure.
OUTCOME
Critical infrastructure is in place, maintained, optimized and strategically planned to meet the future needs of the community.
STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
Ongoing development and refinement of asset management program
Ongoing review, update of 10 Year Capital Plan with identified funding sources and supporting master plans/strategies and estimates
Continued exploration of regional collaboration opportunities for projects (Edmonton Metropolitan Regional Board Servicing Plan, Inter-municipal Collaboration Frameworks)
Pursue grant opportunities and other synergies with regional initiatives for infrastructure projects, including readiness with “shovel ready” projects for emergent grants
Updates of master plans/strategies including: Recreation, Facility and Parks Master Plan (Dow Centennial Center site plan, Aquatics, Ice) in relation to community needs and demographics
Continue advocacy and input for regional transportation projects (bridge twinning/pedestrian bridge, Northeast River Crossing) and exploration of any synergies with planned City capital projects (i.e.) Fort Centre Park, road improvements
Continue to implement Transportation Master Plan to guide the City’s transportation infrastructure
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - To be determined; examples are below
Funding level 10 Year Capital Plan (debt, reserve, tax contribution)
Asset Management Program measures
9
39
Appendix – 2018 Council Priorities
Following the election in October 2017, Council met to establish 2018 priorities that would provide focus and priorities for the organization in 2018 and allow sufficient time and community engagement for development in early 2018 of a four year Strategic Plan to guide the City through 2019 to 2022.
Strategic Plan and Business Planning Framework 2019-22 Council Team Charter 10 Year Capital Plan & asset management Budgeting processes & tools Water billing & transmission system enhancements Strategies to prepare for growth New waste program roll out “Fort Report” request for service system & customer service focus Legalized cannabis framework and approach to prepare for legalized cannabis Transit services report Community initiatives policy & program 2017 Governance Review recommendations implementation Traffic safety & Vision Zero Homelessness and Poverty Study & sub-regional housing work (Home Connector Program)
10