AGENDA - General Committee - 20150323
TOWN OF AURORA
ADDITIONAL ITEMS (REVISED)
FOR SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE
2015 BUDGET REVIEW MEETING
Monday, March 23, 2015
(continued from February 23, March 2, and March 9, 2015)
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
Item 13 – Memorandum from Director of Infrastructure & Environmental Services
Re: Additional Information on Budget Decision Unit #2.4
Sidewalk Snow Removal Services
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the memorandum regarding Additional Information on Budget Decision Unit
#2.4 – Sidewalk Snow Removal Services be received for information.
Item 14 – CFS15-011 – Update on Supplementary Tax Revenue Budget Strategy
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No. CFS15-011 be received for information.
Item 15 – Additional Information to 2015 Draft Operating Budget – Update from the
Director of Corporate & Financial Services/Treasurer
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Additional Information to 2015 Draft Operating Budget – Update from the
Director of Corporate & Financial Services/Treasurer be received for information.
Infrastructure and Environmental
Services
100 John West Way,
Box 1000,
Aurora, ON L4G 6J1
Phone: 905-727-3123 ext. 4371
www.e-aurora.ca
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 23, 2015
TO: Mayor Dawe and Members of Council
FROM: Ilmar Simanovskis, Director of Infrastructure and Environmental Services
RE: Additional Information on Budget Decision Unit #2.4
Sidewalk Snow Removal Services
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT the memorandum regarding Additional Information on Budget Decision Unit
#2.4 – Sidewalk Snow Removal Services be received for information.
COMMENTS
This memo is provided as additional information to the above decision unit as requested by
Budget Committee.
The following is a series of questions and answers to the various questions that were
discussed at the Operating budget meeting of March 9, 2015.
Why were service levels proposed to be reduced?
• Previous service levels were too high to be achieved with current resources
What guidance was used to reduce service levels?
• The revised service levels are based on the minimum requirements of the Minimum
Maintenance Standard which is a document used as a defence for claims by the
municipal sector
What is the risk of not matching service levels with targets?
• It is important that we can do what we say. If targets are unachievable the Town could
be more exposed to claims based on not meeting our performance targets. At the bare
minimum, we need to meet the Minimum Maintenance Standard.
Additional Information on Budget
Decision Unit #2.4 – Sidewalk
March 23, 2015 -2- Snow Removal Services
What changes in service levels were made from the 2013/2014 season to the 2014/2015
season?
• The following table summarizes the service level changes
Parameter 2013/2014 2014/2015 Service
Change
Time and depth of Snow
Yonge Street
5 cm 6 hours1 bare
pavement2
5 cm 6 hours1 bare
pavement2
Time and depth of snow
primary roads
5 cm 8 hours1 bare
pavement2
8 cm 16 hours1 bare
pavement2
Time and depth of snow
secondary roads
5 cm 8 hours1 snow pack3 8 cm 24 hours1 Snow pack3
Time and depth of snow for
sidewalks
5 cm 24 hours1 (Generally
initiated after roads were
completed)
5 cm 24 hours1 (Now a
separate company with
requirement to start shortly
after roads are started)
Ice control on Yonge Street 4 hours1 4 hours1
Ice control primary 5 hours1 12 hours1
Ice control secondary 5 hours1 16 hours1
Sanding of Secondary
Roads
All surfaces Hills, curves and
intersections
Notes: The depth of snow in the table is the trigger point after which staff will deploy the equipment
1. This is the target completion time from the time when equipment is dispatched
2. Bare Pavement is removal of all snow
3. Snow pack on the road is the allowance of a layer of snow to remain on the road and occurs because there is no salt used
on these roads.
What equipment is available to meet these service levels?
• The following presents the equipment in the 2013/2014 season and the 2014/2015.
Parameter 2013/2014 2014/2015 Change
In house sidewalk machines 3 0 (3 machines are available
and used if staff are available
but are not factored into the
service level delivery
requirements)
Contracted sidewalk
machines
4 6
In house plow machines 5 plus 2 spare trucks 5 plus 2 spare trucks
Contract Plows and drivers 4 4
Separate Cul de sac plowing
(performed by staff)
Not practiced 3 units but not on all routes,
only the routes that have the
most courts.
Additional Information on Budget
Decision Unit #2.4 – Sidewalk
March 23, 2015 -3- Snow Removal Services
What efficiencies/service improvements were proposed as a result of the change in
equipment?
• Switch from in-house sidewalks to contract sidewalks and set up a separate
contractor for sidewalks to allow for concurrent start with roads clearing. This was a
change to previous practice where sidewalks were only started once roads were
completed.
• Avoid cul-de-sac with plow trucks (single pass through) and deploy smaller units to
follow up to clean cul-de-sac. Strategy was to deploy staff who would normally go to
sidewalk machines to go to smaller plow equipment to address cul-de-sacs
• Implement “where’s my plow” as a communication tool to inform residents concerned
with plow activity and allow them to track real time progress.
• Avoid “special requests” and focus on meeting service levels throughout community
What does the line by line budget comparison look like for the winter program?
• The winter program is made up of the following budget lines:
o Salaries FT, OT (excluding benfit costs)
o Materials (salt and sand purchases)
o Contracts
• The following graphs present the FT and OT salary trends.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
FT Salaries
FT Budget
FT Actual
Additional Information on Budget
Decision Unit #2.4 – Sidewalk
March 23, 2015 -4- Snow Removal Services
Explanation: both FT and OT costs significantly increased in the 2013 and 2014 years primarily
related to the severity of the winters. Overtime budget has been chronically underfunded. Some
overtime and part time is always required bases on staff scheduled and unpredictability of
weather (weekend events, evening events).
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
OT Salaries
Budget OVertime
Actual overtime
Additional Information on Budget
Decision Unit #2.4 – Sidewalk
March 23, 2015 -5- Snow Removal Services
• The following graph presents material costs:
Explanation: Again we see higher costs in 2013 and 2014 related to the increased demand for
these materials caused by the harder winter conditions.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Salt and Sand Purchases
salt/ sand budget
Salt/Sand actual
Additional Information on Budget
Decision Unit #2.4 – Sidewalk
March 23, 2015 -6- Snow Removal Services
• The following table presents contracted services for the sidewalk and road plowing
operations:
Explanation: Contracted services were required to do more in the past three years for two
reasons, 1) the limitation of available internal resource hours, 2) the severity of the past two
seasons. As these are unit rate contracts and not fixed price contracts, the cost of service is
directly related to the number of events the contractor responds to. The budget is based on a
target number of events and the 2015 budget was adjusted from the proposed amount of
$664,000 as identified in the Sept 2014 staff report IES14-049 to $799,000 when staff reviewed
the forecast 2014 year end costs and recognized that additional funding would be require to
avoid a funding shortfall in 2015.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Budget Contracts
Actual Contracts
Additional Information on Budget
Decision Unit #2.4 – Sidewalk
March 23, 2015 -7- Snow Removal Services
What impact does the new contract approved from Report IES14-049 have on the
contracting budget?
• The following graphs are comparing the current and previous contracts for both
sidewalks and roads. The previous contract equipment counts have been adjusted to
match the new contract equipment counts so that a direct comparison can be made.
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Old Contract New Contract
Sidewalk Contracts
Operating
standby
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
Old Contract New Contract
Road Plow Contracts
Operating
standby
Additional Information on Budget
Decision Unit #2.4 – Sidewalk
March 23, 2015 -8- Snow Removal Services
Explanation: We are paying $136,000 more for the same service for sidewalk clearing. We are
paying $74,000 less for the same road clearing service. The combination is a net increase in the
contracted programs of $62,000. (Note that the actual budget for the old contract was $540,000
based on expected demands for a real difference on contract costs of about $122,000). The
base cost for the previous contract was lower due to the fact that there were only 4 sidewalk
machines and not 6 as is in the new contract.
The final analysis is that although we are paying a small amount more for the new contract
overall, the costs are not that much higher than the previous contract.
If the contract only increased by $122,000, why did Staff Report IES14-049, Award of
Plowing Tenders, request a budget increase of $255,000?
• Because the then approved 2014 budget was $538,460. The severe weather
experienced in the 2013/2014 season required additional resources combined with the
expected costs for the 2014/2015 season. To ensure sufficient funding for the
remainder of 2014, an additional $225,000 was requested. Council also requested that
staff report back with efficiency opportunities to recover this increase.
What are some of the reasons for the cost increase?
• The reason is directly related to the intensity and severity of winters. Factors such as
high snowfalls, fluctuating temperatures and several small snow falls over several days
all combine to determine how much plowing effort is required to meet targets.
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Old Contract New Contract
Combined Contracts
Operating
standby
Additional Information on Budget
Decision Unit #2.4 – Sidewalk
March 23, 2015 -9- Snow Removal Services
Why did the tender for sidewalks (IES14-049) ask for 9 sidewalk machines but only 6
were approved?
Costing for nine machines was requested in the tender because we currently have 9 plow
routes. If the cost of nine machines was within the budget, staff would have proceeded with the
full request to improve the speed of sidewalk clearing. However, the hiring of 6 machines was
an affordability decision. Even though this was less than the combined seven units available in
the previous year (3 in-house and 4 contracted), it was felt that starting with 6 units and
monitoring performance was a better approach.
Can Council add more sidewalk machines if desired?
Yes. Adding an additional contracted sidewalk machine would cost $41,500. Alternately, an
additional seasonal position can be added to provide more resource time to operate one of our
in-house sidewalk machines. The estimated cost for a seasonal position is $28,000.
How has staff responded to Council’s request to find other savings to match the budget
increase of $225,000?
Staff reviewed other departmental services and could not identify any programs where this
amount of savings could be achieved without resulting in significant service cuts. The only
feasible option identified was to try and adjust the sidewalk clearing program as this is one of
the few discretionary services provided by IES. After extensive internal discussions on
alternatives to delivering this service, it was concluded that the only way to actually realize a
cost savings is to reduce the level of service. A drastic reduction (allow as three sidewalk
machines) would be required to reduce the budget by the desired amount. This does not include
any penalty costs for cancelation of the contract for the other three machines.
ATTACHMENT
Appendix A - IES14-047 – Winter Maintenance Policy Salt Management Plan
Appendix B - IES14-049 – Award of Tenders Snow Plow and Sidewalk Contracts
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. IES14-047
SUBJECT: Service Level Review for Winter Maintenance and Revised Policies
FROM: Ilmar Simanovskis, Director of Infrastructure and Environmental
Services
DATE: September 2, 2014
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Council receive report no. IES14-047; and
THAT Council adopt the Level of Service Targets for Winter Maintenance of
Roads and Sidewalks dated June 2014 that align with Ontario Regulation 239/02,
as amended by Ontario Regulation 47/13, being the Minimum Maintenance
Standards for Municipal Highways; and
THAT Council adopt the Salt Management Plan dated June 2014; and
THAT staff be directed to provide winter maintenance service levels in
accordance with the policies while striving to maintain existing community
satisfaction.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with updated documents on Level of
Service Targets for Winter Maintenance of Roads and Sidewalks and the Salt
Management Plan.
BACKGROUND
Winter Maintenance Policy on service levels in need of update to better align
current practices with Provincial Regulation Standards
The Town’s current winter maintenance program is based on the Winter Maintenance
Policy Manual dated October 1997. This policy was adopted prior to the introduction of
the provincial minimum maintenance standards (MMS) which was first introduced in
2002. The Town’s current service levels were reconfirmed in 2002 in Report PW02-064
titled Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways in which the
report recommended that:
TOWN OF AURORA
September 2, 2014 - 2 - Report No. IES14-047 THAT Council adopt Ontario Regulation 239/02 as the Town’s
minimum road maintenance standards, as detailed in Report No.
PW02-064; and
THAT staff be directed to continue to provide the level of service for
snow accumulation and ice on roadways that was previously approved
by Council in 1997, as detailed in Report No. PW02-064.
Since then, staff have been making best efforts to meet the 1997 service levels.
However, service levels have not been able to keep pace with growth in the community.
This report provides recommendations on revisions to our current service levels that will
both meet the MMS requirements while continuing to deliver the level of service the
community has been accustomed to in recent years. The result of this process is to
better mitigate liability related to claims from winter conditions.
Salt Management Plan as a tool to mitigate risk and liability related to salt
management and application
The Code of Practice for the Environmental Management of Road Salts was first
published in 2004 by Environment Canada. This code outlines the requirements for a
salt management plan and is a necessary step to demonstrate the Town’s use of good
management practices and risk management. The current Salt Management Plan was
completed in 2005 and is due for review. Legislation related to management of adverse
effects of salt include:
• Canadian Environmental Protection Act
• Environmental Protection Act
• Fisheries Act
• Ontario Water Resources Act
Update on Town of Aurora Service Level Review that was completed by MNP
In November 2013, MNP Consultants presented the above report to Council wherein a
number of efficiency measures were evaluated for the various services provided by the
Town. Roads operating efficiency relative to MPMP data for comparable municipalities
was included in the report. Based on the data presented, Aurora was reported to be 17
percent higher than the average of the comparator municipalities. Additional analysis
and information is being provided to Council in this report on how Aurora currently
compares to the same group of municipalities.
September 2, 2014 - 3 - Report No. IES14-047 COMMENTS
Primary purpose of defining service levels and policies is to mitigate risk and
reduce liability to the Town
Both winter road management and salt management are high risk areas of operation for
the Town. These risks are primarily related to personal injury claims and environmental
impact effects. The primary purpose of establishing service levels and policies for these
areas of risk is to mitigate the risks and reduce liability to the Town. One of the
fundamental considerations in risk management is the principle of “say what you will do
and do what you will say”. When responding to a legal claim of injury, one key defence
is that the Town has clear and supportable policies and service levels in place and that
those policies are being delivered to the service level targets defined.
The endorsement and application of the policies and service levels within this report are
key defense tools in protecting the Town from claims related to winter road operations
and environmental liability.
Winter operations service levels reviewed to balance MMS requirements and
operational costs while striving to maintain existing service levels
Providing safe roads while protecting the environment from undesirable effects of road
salt application is an important balance when considering any changes to existing
service levels. Also, community expectations are an important factor in concert with
growth pressures and budget constraints. This policy review was approached by asking
the question- How do we meet legislated requirements, minimize environmental
impacts, maximize community safety and commutability, foster a safe work environment
for staff, minimize financial risk and liability to the Town, all while being fiscally prudent
with available tax dollars.
To achieve these ideals, the following principles have been applied in the review of
these policies and service levels:
• Maintain aspects of service levels that support community satisfaction with snow
clearing operations namely
o Full response to a snow event (amount of equipment on the road)
o Quality of snow clearing operations (is the snow off the road)
o Complaint response (where is the truck and when will it get here)
• Reduce aspects of service levels that do not directly affect perceived level of
service namely
o Depth of snow fall which relates to start time for snow equipment
o Overall duration of snow clearing activity
• Reduce or maintain service level costs both from an internal perspective as well
as compared to peers
September 2, 2014 - 4 - Report No. IES14-047 The expected outcome of applying these principles is overall costs and risks can be
reduced through adjustments to the existing service levels that will maintain existing
perceived service levels or potentially improving service level perception.
Winter operations service levels have been adjusted to address the following objectives:
• Continue to support a balance between environmental impact, public safety and
risk mitigation
• Better match resourcing and service expectations and create achievable service
targets that are in compliance with regulations
Goal is to create perception of unchanged or increased service levels through
operational efficiencies
The key complaints in service level for winter operations are:
• Not knowing where the equipment is in the Town
• Not knowing when it will be on the street
• Knowing that sidewalks are treated after the roads are completed
• Having snow left in inappropriate locations due to truck maneuverability (cul-de-
sac clearing in particular)
Plan to implement “Where’s My Plow” as a public web based tool for tracking
equipment
To improved customer service on the first two points, staff is currently proceeding with
our GPS vendor to post our GPS tracking data on a publicly accessible web site for
instant feedback on winter fleet activity. This tool will give every resident the ability to
see exactly where each vehicle is and what parts of the Town are complete. This tool
will provide a significant benefit to community customer service with a minimal
investment in utilizing data we already collect.
Change to contracted services proposed to increase response time for sidewalk
operations
Currently, sidewalk operations are performed by both in-house and contracted services.
Although ideal from a cost perspective, there is a delay in the in-house deliver of
sidewalks due to resource constrains. The current practice is that all road crews start
road operations first as well as contracted sidewalk operations. However, due to long
standing resource efficiency practices, the works staff have always delayed sidewalk
operations until the roads were completed as there are not enough staff to operate all
the equipment concurrently. When this practice was established, the priority for the
department was to create safe roads as quickly as possible. However, community
expectations are changing where there is also an expectation that sidewalks are also
completed at the same time. This creates a real service level gap to community
September 2, 2014 - 5 - Report No. IES14-047 expectations. In extreme cases, sidewalks can be delayed a day or two as in-house
staff struggle to catch up on the sidewalks.
To improve this aspect of service, it is recommended that sidewalk operations be fully
contracted to allow for the entire fleet to be deployed at the same time as road
operations. This shift will reduce completion time for sidewalks.
Change to cul-de-sac clearing practices proposed to increase quality of final
clearing operations
The other significant challenge is maneuverability of snow vehicles in cul-de-sacs
resulting in wasted time and poor clearing.
An industry review has identified a modified practice wherein the road plow simply
passes through the cul-de-sac without fully plowing. This practice significantly increases
overall route completion time. Once the roads are completed, staff would then be
deployed with loader type equipment to follow back to the cul-de-sacs to properly
remove remaining snow and pile it in appropriate areas. This change is manageable
with current staffing levels due to the elimination of in-house sidewalk operations.
Salt management plan updated to reflect activities completed since initial 5-year
plan with identification of new initiatives for the next 5-year planning period
The 2005 Salt Management Plan identified a number of initiatives to improve how the
Town manages salt. The following is a summary of activities completed in support of the
plan:
• Ongoing review of equipment condition and effectiveness and identification of
replacement needs to ensure best salt application control
• All IES operations vehicles fitted with GPS technology to allow for full tracking of
vehicle location, speed, application rates, etc.
• Pilot of salt pre-wetting with brine and eventual conversion of all trucks to salt
brine application for pre-wetting
• Material application rates reduced to minimum effective rates and more analysis
undertaken in deciding when to make applications based on weather conditions
• Reduced sand salt blend from 12% to 10%
• Identified a site for snow storage. Design completed in 2012.
• Developed an electronic materials usage tracking and reporting system to
improve data availability and analysis
• Development of storm response guidelines
The revised salt management plan has been updated to reflect current best practices
and carry forward any initiatives still in progress from the previous plan. Planned
activities of significance include:
September 2, 2014 - 6 - Report No. IES14-047
• Investigation of a joint Regional/Town remote weather information system
(RWIS) which is a real time road condition and weather monitoring station that
would be constructed at a suitable location within the Town.
• Pilot pre-treated salt in lieu of separate addition of liquid brine for the purpose of
reduced use of salt due to increased effectiveness
• Renewal of contract service and related updating of contracted fleet
• Continued review of management of hauled snow
• Continue monitoring industry best practices on salt use, training and new
technologies
Revised services compare favourably to MNP Service level review
The MNP report provided the following comparators and related MPMP results:
Table 1-MNP Roads Operation Summary
Summer costs
($/lane km)
Winter costs
($/lane km)
Combined
Fort Erie 891 1,383 2,274
Milton 454 2,715 3,169
Pickering 1,634 1,840 3,474
Average of comparators 3,318 1,829 5,147
Aurora 3,652 2,383 6,035
Newmarket 4,279 2,171 6,450
Bradford West Gwillimbury 5,542 1,418 6,960
Stouffville 7,106 1,450 8,556
Based on this data set, it was concluded that Aurora’s operating costs generally are
higher than most of the benchmark municipalities (17 percent higher on average). As
part of the overall winter program service review, staff committed to investigate those
municipalities appearing to be more efficient and identify any practise that could be
incorporated into our operations to realise improved efficiency.
To determine where opportunities may exist, staff reviewed the MPMP and took an
additional step of reviewing the Provincial Financial Information Return reports (FIR’s).
2011 was selected as a comparable year where data for all representative peers was
available and consistent to that reported in the MNP report. This review uncovered the
following data and reporting issues:
• For the Town of Aurora the FIR table appears to have overstated operational
costs by $906,000 or 38%
• Some municipalities reported revenue from other sources which artificially
lowered operating costs which was not factored in the MNP report due to the
source of data used
• Distribution of costs between the summer and winter operations and between
summer and winter road lengths were not always consistent
September 2, 2014 - 7 - Report No. IES14-047 • Some municipalities reported gravel road maintenance at an unusually high cost
further skewing the overall true cost of operations (gravel road maintenance was
excluded from the MNP analysis)
Based on these challenges, staff re-evaluated the FIR data set and applied the following
calculations to better normalize the data and make a balanced comparison of
performance:
• All revenue sources were excluded from the calculation to focus on gross
operating costs
• All three categories of road costs were consolidated to identify the full cost of
service delivery (being summer hard surface, summer gravel surface, and
winter operations). This was done to eliminate skewed data if one category was
allocated a disproportionate share of costs
• The total operating cost was divided by the average reported road km length
between summer road length and winter road length. In some cases the
summer and winter road lengths were different resulting in potential distorted
cost comparisons.
The following Table 2 presents the results of this data normalization.
Table 2- 2011 FIR data with applied normalization
Total Program Cost Lane km $/Lane km
Fort Erie 1,834,450 798 2,299
Pickering 3,999,764 926 4,319
Bradford West Gwillimbury 3,461,040 569 6,083
Aurora 2,324,210 371 6,264
Newmarket 3,577,124 522 6,853
Stouffville 3,420,824 464 7,372
Milton 8,445,294 1,094 7,720
Aurora appears to be within the middle of the cost profile for the peer group. Based on
review of operations the only significant factor differentiating Aurora from the lower cost
peers is the length of rural roads vs urban roads. Rural roads are generally lower cost
due to lower service levels and lower traffic volumes.
Another factor in the data is treatment of operating and capital costs. As an instance,
Aurora transferred $500,000 in annual capital costs to operating in 2011 as this
investment was for routine annual road maintenance. It is unclear from the FIR data on
how the peers treated maintenance and to what degree it was funded through operating
or capital programs. If this change was not implemented in Aurora, the cost per lane km
would have been $4,917.
Regarding service levels, Newmarket has only a partial sidewalk program yet their
overall costs are higher than Aurora where all sidewalks are cleared.
September 2, 2014 - 8 - Report No. IES14-047 The conclusion is that Aurora is very competitive when comparing costs and level of
service to the selected peer group.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
This program supports the Strategic Plan Goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality
of Life for All by improving transportation, mobility and connectivity. These policies
support a program that enhances the accessibility and safety of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic during the winter season.
ALTERNATIVE(S) TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations in this report have been formulated based on the principle of
minimizing liability risk while maintaining or improving perceived service levels to the
community through balancing risk, cost and resourcing that consider all pertinent
legislative requirements and best practices.
With adoption of the revised winter maintenance policy that is in line with the MMS,
there is additional room to reduce service levels. However, any efforts to reduce
resourcing to better match the minimum maintenance standards would increase risk
due to reduced resiliency of operations during unusual storm events. The proposed
strategy has created a larger buffer between the minimum service levels of the policy
and the actual achievable service levels that match current expectations. This buffer is
beneficial in reducing risk of liability and claim as a defense in litigation.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The updated Level of Service Targets for Winter Maintenance of Roads and Sidewalks
and the Salt Management Plan have been developed to minimize impact on financial
resources while addressing best practices in winter maintenance.
Budget adjustments may be required from time to time due to severe winter conditions
or during contract renewal periods when changes to the costing structure may occur.
Financial adjustments are presented in Staff report IES14-049 for 2014/2015 based on
recommendations for renewal of the contracted winter fleet services.
CONCLUSIONS
The Level of Service Targets for Winter Maintenance of Roads and Sidewalks and the
Salt Management Plan have been updated to incorporate best practices and recent
changes to the legislative requirements. The focus has been to balance regulatory
requirements with service levels, environmental stewardship and financial requirements.
September 2, 2014 - 9 - Report No. IES14-047
When comparing service costs with a municipal peer group, Aurora is concluded to be
able to provide our road operations at a competitive cost for higher services levels.
However, staff are recommending additional operational enhancements to be
implemented to further improve indirect customer service expectations while minimizing
cost increases to the overall program.
PREVIOUS REPORTS
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A- Winter Maintenance Level of Service Targets, June 2014
Appendix B- Salt Management Plan, June 2014
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Executive Leadership Team meeting of August 21, 2014.
Prepared by. Luigi Colangelo, Manager of Operations - Ext. 3446
Ilmar �manovsk�s Neil Garbe
Director, Infrastructure & Chief Administrative Officer
Environmental Services
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. IES14-049
SUBJECT: Award of Tender IES2014-53 and IES2014-54 – Road Plowing and
Sidewalk Plowing Contracts
FROM: Ilmar Simanovskis, Director of Infrastructure and Environmental
Services
DATE: September 2, 2014
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Council receive report IES14-049; and
THAT Council approve a funding increase of $225,000 to the 2014 winter
maintenance contracts operating budget due to increased service demands
caused by the winter weather which shall be drawn from the General Tax Rate
Stabilization Reserve; and
THAT Tender IES2014-53 in relation to Sidewalk Snow Plowing be awarded to the
lowest responsive and responsible Bidder, Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc., for a
seven (7) year term with year one funding approval for $322,800 for the 2014/2015
winter season, excluding taxes; and
THAT Tender IES2014-54 in relation to Road Snow Plowing be awarded to the
lowest responsive and responsible Bidder, Fermar Paving Limited, for a seven (7)
year term with year one funding approval for $341,200 for the 2014/2015 winter
season, excluding taxes; and
THAT Council authorize the Director to renew Tender IES2014-53 and IES2014-54
on an annual basis for an additional six (6) years, pending an annual analysis and
satisfactory performance review by the Director; and
THAT the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary
Agreements, including any and all documents and ancillary agreements required
to give effect to same.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The purpose of this report is to receive Council’s authorization to award Tender
IES2014-54 to Fermar Paving Limited in relation to road snow removal and IES2014-53
to Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. in relation to sidewalk snow removal.
September 2, 2014 - 2 - Report No. IES14-049
BACKGROUND
Winter operations are performed by a combination of in-house and contracted services.
These services are procured through the Purchasing By-law provisions and are typically
multi-year contracts. The current contract was issued in 2008 and is due for renewal.
COMMENTS
Award of Contract
The Town issued two Requests for Tender (“RFT”) in relation to winter road and
sidewalk plowing to provide service for a seven-year term. RFT IES2014-53 is for the
plowing, sanding and salting of sidewalks using up to nine contracted sidewalk tractors
and two support trucks and RFT IES2014-54 is the plowing, sanding and salting of
roads using four contracted plow trucks.
A total of 37 companies picked up RFT IES2014-53 and on July 24, 2014 the Tender
Opening Committee received five bids. Of the five bids received there were two
compliant bidders whose prices are detailed in Table 1 – Sidewalk Plowing below. The
bid includes the supply of nine sidewalk machines, and two trucks for sand jockeying to
the sidewalk machines for a total term of seven years.
Table 1 – Sidewalk Plowing (IES2014-53)
Company Name Total Bid Price Carrier Rating
1 Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. $2,877,760.00 Satisfactory
2 Forestell $3,776,710.00 Satisfactory
A total of 30 companies picked up RFT IES2014-54 and on July 22, 2014 the Tender
Opening Committee received three bids. Of the three bids received there was one
compliant bidder whose prices are detailed in Table 2 – Road Plowing below. The bid
includes the supply of four road plows for a total term of seven years.
Table 2 – Road Plowing (IES2014-54)
Company Name Total Bid Price Carrier Rating
1 Fermar Paving Limited $2,542,872.00 Satisfactory
One of the mandatory requirements for each RFT is that each bidder is required to
provide a Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) Carrier Safety Rating
(CSR) with a minimum of Satisfactory level by September 1 of each year. The CSR is a
safety score given to the company by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles which takes into
consideration the collisions, convictions, inspections and facility audits related to a
September 2, 2014 - 3 - Report No. IES14-049
company and their drivers. This requirement resulted in the disqualification of three
companies.
The amounts in the tender are based on estimated number of plowing hours and
standby days and may increase or decrease based on the severity of the winter season
or the amount of equipment deployed through the winter season.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
This project supports the Strategic Plan Goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality
of Life for all by investing in sustainable infrastructure. This ensures road safety is
provided to meet the needs and expectations of our community.
ALTERNATIVE(S) TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
The tender process meets all requirements of the Purchasing By-law and awarding this
contract is the next step in fulfilling the requirements of the tendering process.
There are no immediate alternatives to using contracted services for winter
maintenance operations as there are insufficient in-house resources to meet the target
service levels which would increase risk to the community and liability to the Town.
These services are needed to be in place for the fall of 2014.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Snow plow operations are funded from the operating budget and are approved on an
annual basis through the budget process. The annual budget requirements for the snow
plow and sidewalk contracts are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 – Overall Operating Budget Summary
Snow Plowing (Fermar) Sidewalk (Forest Ridge)
Budget Requirements $341,200 $322,800
The following Table 4 summarizes the 2014 budget adjustments based on a budget
increase of $225,000.
September 2, 2014 - 4 - Report No. IES14-049
Table 4 – Snow Management Contracts
(1) Increased 2014 costs primarily due to high snow volumes in period from January to March
Impact to cost per lane-km metric
The 2015 budget for the combined winter and summer road program will result in a cost
of $6,608 per lane-km based on budget requirements of the previous contract.
The outcome of the successful bids are higher than the costs of the previous contract
on a unit basis resulting in a required budget increase of $112,000 on a 2015 budget of
$2,669,700, and a service level cost of $6,885 per lane-km. Actual costs will vary
depending in the specific winter conditions experienced in 2015.
CONCLUSIONS
The current contract for road winter maintenance will expire in 2014. The tenders for
road and sidewalk operations have been let with the intent of having a contractor in
place for the 2014 winter season.
It is recommended that a seven-year contract be awarded to the following bidders:
• Sidewalk Snow Plowing be awarded to Forest Ridge Landscaping Inc. for a
seven (7) year term with year one funding approval for $322,800 for the
2014/2015 winter season, excluding taxes; and
• Road Snow Plowing be awarded to Fermar Paving Limited for a seven (7) year
term with year one funding approval for $341,200 for the 2014/2015 winter
season, excluding taxes; and
Additional budget of $225,000 is required to fund the remainder of the 2014 winter
operations contracted services due to the significant costs incurred by the harsh winter
conditions in early 2014.
PREVIOUS REPORTS
None
Approved Budget 2014 – Snow Management – Contracts $538,460
Less Approved 2014 P.O. 86 $402,500
Less Approved 2014 P.O. 87 $135,960
Remaining funding $28,277
Additional Funding Required (related to higher contracted costs for 2014 to date) $225,000
Revised Budget 2014 – Snow Management – Contracts (1) $763,460
Proposed Budget for 2015 $664,000
September 2, 2014 - 5 - Report No. IES14-049
ATTACHMENTS
None
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Executive Leadership Team meeting of August 21, 2014
Prepared by: Luigi Colangelo, Manager of Operations Services - Ext. 3446
ll ar Simanovski
Director, Infrastructure &
Environmental Services
c
Neil Garbe
Chief Administrative Officer
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. CFS15-011
SUBJECT: Update on Supplementary Tax Revenue Budget Strategy
FROM: Dan Elliott, Director, Corporate & Financial Services - Treasurer
DATE: March 23, 2015
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Report No. CFS15-011 be received for information.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
General Committee – Budget requested a report with respect to the status of the
Supplementary Tax Revenue Budget Strategy, which was adopted by Committee at its
meeting held January 20, 2014, as per report CFS14-004. Of particular interest was the
implications of the 2015 budget proposal to defer implementation of that strategy by one
year.
BACKGROUND
Supplementary taxes (“supps”) are incremental property value assessments of newly
constructed/renovated properties which are reported to the municipality by MPAC mid-
year, and are billed as tax revenues during the tax year and which are in addition to
taxes already levied on the original annual assessment values. Recognizing that supps
will occur, and will generate revenue during the budget process reduces the tax rate
otherwise required to operate the town for the year. Accordingly, the Town includes an
estimate of its expected supps in its annual operating budget.
The 2014 Supplementary Tax Revenue Budget Strategy was proposed due to the
expected peak of supplementary taxes in the next few years, followed by a significant
dropping off to “new normal” levels which are significantly below those the Town has
been using in its budgets in the last five years. The strategy proposed a five year phase
down from current budget levels to the new long term levels expected, despite the peak
expected in the interim period. The strategy was to enhance predictability and stability
of tax rates for the community.
TOWN OF AURORA
March 23, 2015 - 2 - Report No. CFS15-011 COMMENTS
The supps strategy introduced last year was in response to an expected peak of supps
to occur as the 2C lands are building out, but also to recognize that in the coming years,
supps will be significantly diminished, as growth will curtail to very basic levels, not
previously experienced by the Town. With this knowledge and foresight, staff presented
Committee with a proposed strategy for managing the budget for supps through this
transition in a deliberate and predetermined manner.
For 2010, 2011 and 2012, the Town budgeted $425,000 of supps revenue, while in
2013, that budget was increased to $525,000. In forecasting supps over the next ten
years, it is expected that supps in actual billings could reach as high as $1.1Million, but
fall to a new normal level of $150,000 by 2022.
The following table shows supps taxes past and forecast, as included in the 2014
Strategy Report.
The 2014 Supplementary Tax Budget Strategy was to stabilize tax pressures
through the period 2014 to 2023
Supps for the 2014 year were expected to be lower than normal, due to low
development activity in the 2013 and early 2014 period. However this was seen as a
one-time low, to be followed by the peak high in 2015. Accordingly, the strategy for
2014 budget was to lower the actual budget amount for supps to the expected $250,000
level, which would normally trigger a direct tax rate pressure. To relieve this one-time
predicted tax pressure, staff recommended a draw from the tax rate stabilization draw in
an equal amount to the supps budget reduction.
For 2015 and forward, despite anticipated peak supps revenues to be realized, it was
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
Supplementary Tax Revenues
Past & Forecast (from 2014 Strategy)
Actual
Budget
Expected
March 23, 2015 - 3 - Report No. CFS15-011 recommended to begin lowering the budget reliance on the higher supps revenues, and
move deliberately towards the anticipated long-term levels. This strategy was intended
to smoothly incorporate this tax pressure into the budget over a six year period as
illustrated below:
The impact of undertaking the recommended budget strategy was that for the years
2015 through to 2021 inclusive, the Town would recognize significant operational
surpluses (actual revenues exceeding budgeted revenues), estimated as $2.2million
total. Such surpluses will be contributed to infrastructure or stabilization reserves
depending on circumstances in each year. It was also clear that during those five years,
a distinct tax pressure on the budget would arise as we eliminate this revenue source
from our budget.
The 2015 Budget delays implementation of Supp Strategy for one year
For 2015, in attempting to address many other mounting budget pressures, particularly
those from Fire Services, and other revenue reductions, staff presented a draft 2015
budget without the planned supps revenue budget reduction. Staff were clear in
highlighting this to Budget Committee in the introductory report and comments.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The 2014 strategy recommended a $75,000 per year reduction in the supps revenue
budget commencing in 2015, with the final $50,000 reduction occurring in 2020. The
draft 2015 budget before Committee presently does not reflect such reduction, having
left the supps revenue budget unchanged from 2013 and net effective 2014 budgets.
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
Supplementary Taxes - 2014 Budget Strategy
Budget
Actual
Budget Plan
Expected
$2.2Million Surplus
March 23, 2015 - 4 - Report No. CFS15-011 The 2015 budget proposal is to defer the implementation of the Supplementary Tax
Budget Strategy by one year, illustrated as follows:
Under the 2014 proposed strategy, the anticipated total surplus for the period 2015 to
2021 inclusive was $2,200,000. Delaying the implementation of the strategy by one year
will reduce this amount by $425,000 to $1,775,000. The $425,000 represents the
accumulated impact of deferring the 2015 tax pressure of $75,000 by five years, plus
the final $50,000 reduction by one year.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Outlining and understanding the Town’s long term financial plan and our plans for
reliance on supplementary taxes for budget purposes contributes to achieving the
Strategic Plan guiding principle of “Leadership in Corporate Management” and improves
transparency and accountability to the community.
ALTERNATIVE(S) TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. May provide alternative directions with respect to the 2015 draft budget for
supplementary tax revenues.
CONCLUSIONS
This report has been prepared in response to a question from General Committee –
Budget. The proposal before Committee is to delay the implementation of a five year
phase-out of budget reliance on unsustainable supplementary tax revenues. The delay
of implementing the first $75,000 reduction has a five-fold impact on the corporation, or
$425,000 less total tax revenue during the five year period.
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Supplementary Taxes - Revised 2015 Strategy
Expected
Budget Plan
Revised Plan
$1,775,000 Surplus
March 23, 2015 -5-Report No. CFS15-011
PREVIOUS REPORTS
CFS14-004 Budget Strategy for Supplementary Taxes for 2C Lands, Special General
Committee -Budget, January 11, 2014
ATTACHMENTS
None
PRE-SUBMISSION REVIEW
CAO and Treasurer Only
Prepared by: Dan Elliott, Director of Corporate & Financial Services -Treasurer
Dan Elliott, CPA, CA
Director of Corporate & Financial
Services -Treasurer
Neil Garbe
Chief Administrative Officer
2015 DRAFT OPERATING BUDGET
March 23, 2015
1
Budget Committee Schedule I
2
Residential Commercial
STARTING POINT - Draft Budget, As of January 27, 2015 =4.96 % 3.06%1.73%
CYFS 202,116 1,969,816 0.57 % 5.53 % 3.27%1.85%
AHS Increased Town grant in support of outreach educational program 10,000 1,979,816 0.03 % 5.56 % 3.28%1.86%
ACC Increased Town grant in support of add'l staffing 10,000 1,989,816 0.03 % 5.59 % 3.29%1.86%
Corporate Rate stabilization fund draw to balance CYFS tax pressure to 1.30%(9,900) 1,979,916 (0.03 %) 5.56 % 3.28%1.86%
Various CAO's proposed budget adjustments ( $167,700 ):- 1,979,916 - 5.56 % 3.28%1.86%
- Building services overhead charge increase (47,200) 1,932,716 (0.13 %) 5.43 % 3.23%1.83%
- Partial stabilization of Parks & Recreation revenue short-fall (49,900) 1,882,816 (0.14 %) 5.29 % 3.18%1.80%
- Reduction of Council contingency budget (15,000) 1,867,816 (0.04 %) 5.25 % 3.17%1.79%
- Maintain Aurora Cultural Centre grant at 2014 funding levels (10,000) 1,857,816 (0.03 %) 5.22 % 3.16%1.79%
- Reduction of Aurora Historical Society 2015 grant increase (2,500) 1,855,316 (0.01 %) 5.21 % 3.15%1.78%
- Reduction in requested energy budget increase (10,000) 1,845,316 (0.03 %) 5.18 % 3.14%1.78%
- Absorb N6 shared waste mgmt resource cost within existing funding levels (10,000) 1,835,316 (0.03 %) 5.15 % 3.13%1.77%
- Reduction in Aurora Public Library requisition increase (3,100) 1,832,216 - 5.15 % 3.13%1.77%
- Reduction in established recycling collection contract budget (10,000) 1,822,216 (0.03 %) 5.12 % 3.12%1.77%
- Other general operating budget decreases (10,000) 1,812,216 (0.03 %) 5.09 % 3.11%1.76%
PRS Creation of Community Rebound Fitness Class 18,000 1,830,216 0.05 % 5.14 % 3.13%1.77%
PRS Receipt of Federal Grant in Support of Community Rebound Class (18,000) 1,812,216 (0.05 %) 5.09 % 3.11%1.76%
PRS - 1,812,216 - 5.09 % 3.11%1.76%
Council Contribution to Cdn Sesquicentennial Aurora Events 2017 - 1,812,216 - 5.09 % 3.11%1.76%
44,516 0.13 %
Estimated
Tax Rate Share Weighted Share Weighted
Pressure of Tax Rate of Tax Rate
(from above)Tax Bill Pressure Tax Bill Pressure
5.09 % 36.0 % 1.83 % 20.4 % 1.04%
2.97 % 43.1 % 1.28 % 24.4 % 0.72%
- 21.0 % - 55.3 % 0.00%
8.06%3.11%1.76%
1,767,700
Increase in CYFS requirement based upon draft budget
COMMERCIAL
CALCULATION OF IMPACT ON OVERALL TAX BILL
RESIDENTIAL
A D J U S T M E N T S R E S U L T S
Ref.Department I T E M
Change to
Operating
Budget
St. Maximilian Kolbe high school proposal to contribute $40,000 toward bleachers
Running
Revised
Budget
Increase
Impact on
Town
Rate
Running
Town
Rate
Pressure
Effective Combined Tax
Impact
Town of Aurora
Region of York
Education
3
Town of Aurora's Tax Levy Pressure ( 2015 to 2018 )
( Town Share Only )
Residential - Impact per $100,000 of Assessment Value
4
TOTAL TAX BILL IMPACTS TOWN SHARE ONLY
Impact to Total Tax Bill ( consolidated including Town, York Region and education shares) Impact to Town Share of Tax Bill
Assessed Value - Residential $100,000 Assessed Value - Residential $100,000
(2013 assessment used for 2014 taxation) (2013 assessment used for 2014 taxation)
2014 Residential Tax Rate 0.967896% 2014 Residential Tax Rate 0.348163%
2014 Total Residential Tax Billing $967.90 2014 Town Tax Billing $348.16
Estimated 2015 Tax Bill Increase 3.11% Estimated 2015 Town Tax Increase 5.09%
Per year $30.10 Per year $17.72
Per month $2.51 Per month $1.48
Per Day $0.08 Per Day $0.05
Estimated 2015 Total Tax Billing per $100,000 of
assessed value $998.00
Estimated 2015 Total Tax Billing per $100,000 of
assessed value $365.88
Residential - For a Home Assessed at $500,000
5
TOTAL TAX BILL IMPACTS TOWN SHARE ONLY
Impact to Total Tax Bill ( consolidated including Town, York Region and education shares) Impact to Town Share of Tax Bill
Assessed Value - Residential $500,000 Assessed Value - Residential $500,000
(2013 assessment used for 2014 taxation) (2013 assessment used for 2014 taxation)
2014 Residential Tax Rate 0.967896% 2014 Residential Tax Rate 0.348163%
2014 Total Residential Tax Billing $4,839.48 2014 Town Tax Billing $1,740.82
Estimated 2015 Tax Bill Increase 3.11% Estimated 2015 Town Tax Increase 5.09%
Per year $150.49 Per year $88.61
Per month $12.54 Per month $7.38
Per Day $0.41 Per Day $0.24
Estimated 2015 Total Tax Billing $4,989.97 Estimated 2015 Total Tax Billing $1,829.43