COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

AGENDA

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

at 4:00 p.m. to be held in the Classroom 1. CALL TO ORDER ` 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. DEPUTATIONS, PETITIONS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

5. NEW BUSINESS

a) Clean Water and Wastewater Fund – Treasurer and Director of Public Works

Recommendation: That Committee of the Whole authorizes the Treasurer and the Director of Public Works to submit an application for the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund (CWWF) for the River Road West expansion and revitalization project.

b) Residential Parking Passes – Options – Senior MLEO Recommendation: That the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that it direct the Municipal Law Enforcement and Licensing Department to implement the necessary by-law amendments to implement Option 2 (Reduction in Residential Parking Pass fees) and Option 4 (Implementation of Non-Residential parking Pass Program.

c) Exemption to the Per Diem Policy for a Member of Council – CAO Recommendation: That Committee of the Whole make a recommendation to Council on the request for an exemption under the Allowable Expenses Policy so that members of Council may claim a portion of specialized adult care expenses as part of the$120 per day per diem effective January 1, 2015.

d) Deputy Clerk position – CAO

Recommendation: THAT Committee of the Whole recommend to Council that it approve the Chief Administrative Officer’s proposed changes to the Deputy Clerk/Cemetery Custodian job description; and FURTHER, that it approve the transfer of the Executive Assistant to the CAO duties to the Executive Assistant to the Mayor and Council position.

COWOC –October 11, 2016 Page 2 of 3

e) 2017-2018 Council Strategic Priorities – CAO

Recommendation: THAT Committee of the Whole recommend to council the priorities to be included for consideration as part of the 2017 Budget and listed for future consideration as part of the 2018 Budget.

6. ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS (new items) 7. CLOSED SESSION

8. ADJOURNMENT

COWOC –October 11, 2016 Page 3 of 3

TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OCTOBER 11, 2016

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

a) MNR Beach Maintenance – A. McNeil – May 17, 2016

b) Creation of a Business Plan for Beachfront properties – A. McNeill *Fall

2015

c) Chamber of Commerce – A. McNeil - Tourism Service Agreement – Spring 2016

d) Legal Services RFP – A. McNeil – RFP’s received Sept. 8, 2016

e) Walk in Clinic – Georgian Bay Family Health Team - Council – July 26,

2016

f) Wasaga Distribution / Wasaga Resources – Council - July 26, 2016

g) Free Resident Parking – Mayor Smith - June 13, 2016

h) KPMG Corporate Efficiency Report presentation – Clerk - May 17, 2016 i) Board of Governors for Beachfront Operations – August 30, 2016

j) Dedicated Communication person – August 30, 2016

k) Electric Elements exclusive request – August 30, 2016

l) Update on Main Street Market & Beachfront Property Management –

August 30, 2016 o) Dardanella options – August 30, 2016 p) Proposed Management Board for Beachfront Properties – Sept. 20, 2016

q) Surveillance cameras for Beach 1 & 2 – Mayor Smith/CAO October 4, 2016 r) Provincial Park Property Assessment – MQ – October 4, 2016 s) FCM - Canada 150 Community Leaders – Mayor – October 4, 2016

STAFF REPORT

TO: Committee of the Whole of Council

FROM: Monica Quinlan, Treasurer Kevin Lalonde, Director of Public Works

SUBJECT: Clean Water and Wastewater Fund

DATE: October 11th, 2016

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee of the Whole of Council authorize the Treasurer and the Director of Public Works to submit an application for the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund (CWWF) for the River Rd W expansion and revitalization project.

BACKGROUND

The Clean Water and Wastewater Fund (CWWF) is a federal program designed to accelerate short- term community investments, while supporting the rehabilitation and modernization of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, and the planning and design of future facilities and upgrades to existing systems.

Through the CWWF, the federal government is providing $569.5 million dollars in federal infrastructure funding to cost-share:

1) Rehabilitation projects; 2) New construction projects; 3) Optimization initiatives; and 4) Planning and design work.

The Province of Ontario is cost-matching recipient contributions up to a maximum of 25% of total eligible costs within the specified allocations, with the Federal government topping this up to a total of 75% of eligible costs.

CWWF funds the development and construction of community capital projects that address immediate drinking water, wastewater and stormwater needs that will also foster economic growth and support a cleaner and healthier environment for communities.

The objectives of the CWWF are to:

Improve reliability of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems and meet federal or

provincial regulations, standards or guidelines;

Rehabilitate and modernize Ontario’s aging infrastructure; and

Accelerate short-term community infrastructure investments across Ontario.

Form: WB-SR2010

2

It is important to note that CWWF funding is not a competitive process. Eligible recipients may submit a Project List for a total funding request equal to each recipient’s Maximum Allocation Amount as defined in the CWWF Letter of Allocation. The Town’s total allocation is $2,050,521 (Federal - $1,367,014 and Provincial - $683,507) and the total amount of funding received can be up to 75% of a project’s total eligible costs. This means the Town can use the funding for a project of up to $8.2 Mio.

DISCUSSION

Staff met to discuss the projects that would meet the eligibility requirements and correspond with Council’s objectives. Based on these discussions a prioritized list of projects was reviewed and then each project was evaluated based on suitability to the funding program, and timing

The projects were ranked and reviewed as below:

1. River Road West Urbanization (Brillinger Drive to Veterans Way) - $6.1 Mio – This project

includes widening and urbanization of River Road West complete with bicycle lanes and sidewalks, providing greater transportation safety for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, it provides drainage facilities where none currently exist, including stormwater quality control prior to its discharge into the Nottawasaga River. It is a 75% DC recoverable project and aligns well with the timing of the recently completed Schoonertown Bridge project, and the current AADT (average annual daily traffic) is > 15,000.

Staff believes this to be the first priority since: 1) it addresses health and safety concerns, as well as environmental quality; 2) due to the project being 75% DC funded little tax funded investment is required from the Municipality should the funding be received; and 3) it aligns well with the funding program in addressing improved access, increased mobility and extension of the life of the existing asset as well as collection, conveyance and treatment of surface water runoff before entering the Nottawasaga River, which is an eligibility factor for the CWWF; and 4) it is the highest priority road project in the Town’s Capital Works Forecast.

2. Trillium Creek Flow Containment Berm - $1.8 Million – This project includes construction of a

flood containment berm along Trillium Creek between 45th Street and 58th Street South, together with a maintenance platform and pedestrian trail. The detailed design is near completion and all required property negotiations have been finalized. Although this project aligns well with the funding program, staff is of the opinion that the River Road West project provides a greater benefit to the community and has a much higher overall project cost to be subsidized. This project is 50% Development Charge recoverable.

3. SCADA Upgrades – Water & Wastewater Facilities – The following information is drawn from

the OCWA 10-Year Forecast regarding the requirements of upgrading the Town’s current water and wastewater communications control system (SCADA):

a) Sanitary Sewage Pumping Stations (PS) The SCADA system being used by the pumping stations is over 20 years old and needs to be upgraded with a system that contains greater utility and function. An upgrade will allow for each PS to transmit its data separately to the Water Pollution Control Plant possibly through an internet connection. The PSs will all contain a historian in order to maintain data records in the

3

event of communications failure. Also, by eliminating the need for dedicated phone lines present in some of the pumping stations, it would result in increased operational cost savings.

b) Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) The SCADA and PLC control system is now 20 years old and needs to be upgraded in the next few years to newer technology. There is also an issue with the existing plant alarm system dialer. It has reached its capacity and there is no room to add new alarms. The system must be upgraded to increase its capacity and also bring the functionality up to today’s standards. This is proposed to be done as part of the overall SCADA control system upgrade.

c) Water Treatment Plants The existing SCADA system is quite old and well past its useful life. It is estimated that the cost of the actual SCADA upgrades for the water facilities is approximately $270,000. The existing chart recorder data recording system is quite archaic and needs to be replaced with a modern HMI/historian alternative that can be integrated into SCADA. The SCADA upgrade work will include this item, as well.

Additional Information:

a. It is proposed to allocate $25,000 for the development of an overall SCADA - process control and communications strategy for the entire system (including the water facilities).

b. We have allocated $300,000 to upgrade the plant control systems at the WPCP although this work could be spread over a two or three year period.

c. Although the SCADA system upgrades are an important improvement to the Town systems, funding for this work is accounted for through water and sewer rates and therefore are not a direct impact to taxation, as would be the case to pay for the non-DC recoverable portion of the above noted two capital projects.

CONCLUSION

From the above analysis staff have concluded that the RRW (Brillinger Drive to Veterans Way) project provides the greatest overall benefit to the community and is in-line with the eligibility requirements for the CWWF program. It is therefore recommended that the Town apply for funding for this project to maximize the benefit of the funding program.

Respectfully Submitted,

Monica Quinlan, Kevin Lalonde, Treasurer Director of Public Works

Concur with Recommendation

George Vadeboncoeur Chief Administrative Officer

Form: WB-SR2010

STAFF REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole FROM: Doug Vincent, Senior Municipal Law Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Residential Parking Passes - Options DATE: October 11, 2016 RECOMMENDATION THAT Community Services Committee recommends to Council that it direct the Municipal Law Enforcement and Licensing Department to implement the necessary by-law amendments to implement Option 2 (Reduction in Residential Parking Pass fees) and Option 4 (Implementation of Non-Resident Parking Pass program). BACKGROUND The Residential Parking Pass was introduced in 2006 when the Province was raising their Annual Parking Permit from $70 to $90 effective April 1, 2006. The desire of council at that time was to create a permit for residents to access the Towns municipal parking lots at a reasonable rate. It was anticipated that the permit would address the needs of the residents and provide an alternative to the Provincial Park Pass. Several council members felt it could generate revenue between $30,000 to $60,000. Historical Permit Stats

Year # of Permits Gross Revenue Permits- year over year increase (decrease)

% year over year increase (decrease)

2006 159 $4,800 N/A N/A 2007 128 $3,836 (31) (20%) 2008 170 $5,085 42 32% 2009 278 $8,335 108 64% 2010 379 $11,907 101 36% 2011 432 $12,974 53 14% 2012 500 $15,000 68 16% 2013 609 $18,260 109 22% 2014 793 $23,784 184 30% 2015 984 $29, 523 191 24% 2016 1487* $44,610 503 51% *Equates to ≥ 12% of Wasaga Beach households utilized pass (based on 12, 000 households & one pass/household).

2

REVENUE UTILIZATION Currently, the Residential Parking Pass revenues, along with other parking lot revenues, fund the municipal the Parking Division operational costs and also contribute $250,000 annually in revenue to the By-law Division Division. This is non-tax base revenue that relieves the taxpayer from paying for By-law Enforcement services. Also, the costs associated with capital repairs and maintenance of the lots is also covered by the fees collected. Additionally, parking revenues also pay, on average, $80,000/yr in property tax owing on parking lots, which is not collected from the tax base. HISTORIC BEACHFRONT PARKING Historically, the Beachfront Parking in the main beach area has been on a user-pay system by both tourists and residents. This has generated a non-tax base revenue stream, as noted above that has been used to provide other services (By-law Services, property taxes, and land acquisitions, etc.) without being paid for by the Wasaga Beach taxpayers. Dunkerron Lot at 19th Street has also provided free parking on weekdays for any person wishing to visit the beachfront, since 2005. Resident pass holders also enjoy access to an exclusive lot on 24th Street North, just outside the Provincial Park Gate. The Municipal Law Enforcement & Licensing Department was directed to bring back a Report on the Residential Parking Pass system, with the consideration of reducing or eliminating a cost to the Residential taxpayer. It was noted that the City of Barrie had implemented a “Free” Waterfront parking pass program and staff were asked to investigate the concept and Report back on the findings. DISCUSSION City of Barrie Experience The City of Barrie’s waterfront has historically provided free parking for both residents and tourists alike. In 2014, in response to concerns expressed by residents that they were unable to access their own waterfront spaces due to “non-residents” occupying all the available parking, the city moved to provide residents with free passes and began charging “others” to park at the waterfront. The City Traffic and Parking Department was not funded by waterfront parking at the time this change was implemented. The initial program saw a 2-year (2014-2015) year-round pass distributed in resident water bills. Each municipal water account was sent 2 passes (42,000 initially mailed) which took 2 months to accomplish. The City then produced another 50,000 passes that were distributed over the 2 year life cycle of the 1st round of passes. At one point staff were issuing 600 passes/week; significant issues were noted with: materials, cost/quality, mail stuffing, and staff time handing complaints (issuing additional passes for various reasons). Unwanted/extra passes immediately were available on Kijiji. The City’s policy provided for 2 Free passes, the 3rd pass @ $20 and any additional passes @ $90 each. The second round of permit distribution (2016-2017) was not done in-house. A newer, more robust y permit was developed and could not easily be “Stuffed” mechanically with water or tax bills, so an individual mailer was created (60,000 mailers with 2 passes each). An additional 60,000 individual passes were also produced.

3

The City used a Canada Post “Beta test” program to receive a more favourable mailing rate, but this meant that individual addresses could not be identified which has led to large amounts of staff time dealing with residents claiming they had not received their passes (down to 100/week from 600/week). The passes were more durable but then created access issues to available parking in lots in the marina areas. The City has now created “non-residential” pass lots or hybrid lots where passes cannot be used, to address these issues. Again, unused/unwanted passes continue to be “black-marketed” on Kijiji sites. The material/distribution cost, not including staff time, is estimated at $0.87/address for the City of Barrie project, every 2 years. OPTION I - FREE PARKING FOR RESIDENTS [2 Free Passes distributed (mailed)]. Implementation Cost (not including Staff time)

i) Production & Distribution (12,000 homes) $17,560 ii) Revenue Loss (2016 - $45,000) $45,000

Total net Cost $62,560 net cost Avg. Cost per/address $5.21/yr.

Other considerations

• 2016 – 1500 passes purchased now 24,000 distributed Surplus passes =22,500 (over last year) • 1186 Municipal Parking Lots Capacity – Beach 1 & 2 • Possible “Black-marketed” sale of surplus passes = additional lost revenue • Significant Staff time for implementation and then subsequent issues

management. OPTION II - REDUCTION IN FEE FOR RESIDENT PASS Example – Scenario 1 – Reduce to $25.00, 2nd pass for $5.00 Scenario 2 – Reduce to $20.00, 2nd pass for $10.00 Implementation Considerations – Scenario 1 ($25/2nd $5) Based on 20% Growth in 2016 Projected Sales – 1784 permits @ $25 = $44,600 – 2nd Permit (2% in 2016) $ 200 $46,600 revenue

Other considerations: • 2016 Revenue maintained, 2nd pass sales may increase • No additional implementation costs • By-law amendment required

4

• No additional impact to tax-base • No additional staff time (except normal issuing process)

Implementation Considerations – Scenario 2 ($20/2nd $10) Projected Sales – 1784 permits @ $20 = $35,680 – 2nd Permit $ 400 ≥ $37,000 revenue

Other considerations • Slight revenue shortfall (based on 2016) • No additional implementation costs • By-law amendment required • No additional impact to tax-base • No additional staff time (except normal issuing process)

OPTION III - STATUS QUO – Residential Pass $30 (2nd Pass – Suggest reduction to $5) Implementation Considerations

• Revenue Projection (20% increase) 1784 Permits @ $30 = $53,520

Project 20% increase in additional permits 356 additional 2nd permit @ $5 $ 1,784 $55,304 revenue

• Project $10,000 increase in revenue on 2140 permits available to residents Staff appreciate comments made about offering residents free parking as a perk for living in Wasaga Beach, however in staff’s opinion the impact on revenues would be too great in a year where Council is looking at every program expenditure to try and maximize revenues and create efficiencies. Any reduction in Parking revenue means less funds transferred to the By-law Enforcement program that that is tax dollar supported. Option 2 provides for a reduction in the fee, but could still generate the same amount of revenue as 2016. Finally, the price of a pass would still be a good deal compared to the Provincial Park parking pass. New Initiative INTRODUCE NEW NON-RESIDENT SEASONAL PARKING PASSES TYPE 1 – VALID MUNICIPAL LOTS ONLY - $49.95 seasonal (mirror of residential pass) TYPE 2 – PREMIUM PASS – LOTS & ON-STREET SEASONAL PASS - $99.95 (anyone can purchase and residents could trade-up) Implementation Considerations

• The TYPE 1 pass would pay for itself in 3.3 day visits (at $15 FLAT RATE municipal)

5

• The TYPE 2 pass would pay for itself in 25 hrs of on-street parking (3-4 average days)

• Provide options for those who want flexibility • Revenue projections: we conservatively estimate 200 lot pass (TYPE 1) and 100

Premium passes (TYPE 2) could be sold generating $20,000 new revenue in first year.

Other Considerations • Attractive value for repeat visitors- encourage repeat business • New flexibility for Beach Drive premium parking • Great market tool – Radio/Tourism contests • *Would require marketing strategy and support dollars for advertising* • Could now be presold in fall after great Summer season • Could be sold through HONK mobile (little or no cost to municipality) or online • Could consider upset limit to control number of passes available until public

response is more clearly defined. In reviewing the various seasonal pass options, the Municipal Law Enforcement and Licensing Department is recommending Committee of the Whole recommend that Council implement Option 2 (Reduced Fee) and the new Non-Resident Pass program be approved, and that staff work with the Communications staff on Marketing Plan immediately.

Respectively Submitted, Doug Vincent Doug Vincent Senior Municipal Law Enforcement Officer

Form: WB-SR2010

STAFF REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole FROM: George Vadeboncoeur, CAO SUBJECT: Deputy Clerk/Cemetery Custodian and Executive Assistant to CAO Functions DATE: October 11, 2016 RECOMMENDATION THAT Committee of the Whole recommend to Council that it approve the Chief Administrative Officer’s proposed changes to the Deputy Clerk/Cemetery Custodian job description; Further, that it approve the transfer of the Executive Assistant to the CAO duties to the Executive Assistant to the Mayor and Council position. DISCUSSION With the retirement of the Deputy Clerk/Executive Assistant/Cemetery Custodian approaching staff have been assessing the broad functions that this position is responsible for. The role has expanded and evolved over the years with additional duties to the point where the position is somewhat overwhelmed. The key focus of the review was to see how the function of the Deputy Clerk could be enhanced and solidified. In order to do so, staff considered if specific functions could be delegated to other areas of the organization. The first consideration was to review the function of the Cemetery Custodian. It was considered that this function be moved to the Parks and Facilities office at the RecPlex since the Parks office supports the burials and upkeep of the cemetery. Processes were mapped and meetings were held with relevant staff and it was determined that due to logistical and staffing challenges that this function would be best served at Town Hall and should be maintained within this position. Through the mapping process staff determined that there are methods to streamline this service that can be implemented so that the responsibility can be coordinated in a more efficient manner. The duties of Executive Assistant to the CAO were the next responsibilities examined. These duties support of the CAO position, but not on a full time basis, as the CAO manages the majority of his correspondence and administrative needs. What is needed is support in scheduling meetings, answering phone calls in the CAO’s absence, file retrieval and filing. Consideration of how this function could be facilitated has been ongoing and on a temporary basis, it is recommended that these duties be transferred to the Executive Assistant to the Mayor and Council. This will allow the CAO to review the capacity of the position to assume these duties before any further action is taken. This will also provide time to fill the Deputy Clerk/Cemetery Custodian position and have the new person settle in with the Deputy Clerk responsibilities.

2

Another key focus of the Deputy Clerk position will be on the records management needs of the Corporation. These responsibilities need to be maintained in order to keep the system current. The current Deputy Clerk/Cemetery Custodian/Executive Assistant position is established in Value Group 7 and it is recommended that this position remain in this grade and be re-evaluated later in 2017 once the responsibilities have been established fully. The Town will be without both a Town Clerk commencing in December, so it is imperative that the recruitment process for the Deputy Clerk commence immediately. Staff have made arrangements to post the position tomorrow and allow for a three week timeframe for applications. Interviews would follow and it is hoped that a new Deputy Clerk can be in place by mid to end of November. With these changes, it is proposed that Deputy Clerk position be relocated to the Treasury area. The CAO/Clerk counter will be shut down and the Treasury counter will be then become the main customer service counter for the building. The Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Council and CAO will then relocate to the current Deputy Clerk’s work station. The writer will be bringing a report forward with options on the Clerk’s position to the next Committee of the Whole meeting for discussion. Respectively Submitted, George Vadeboncoeur Chief Administrative Officer