2017 02 28 Business Plan Follow Up Information LG
Report to Committee DATE:
February 16, 2017
TO:
Budget and Infrastructure Committee
FROM:
Farouk Zaba Manager of Financial Planning and Systems
SUBJECT:
2017-2018 BUSINESS PLAN FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 2017-2018 Departmental Business Plans and operating budgets were presented to committee on December 5 and 6, 2016 followed by Decision Package deliberations on December 13th. A number of requests for additional information and for changes to workplans and the budget binder were made by Committee during the presentations and deliberations. This report provides the additional information requested. RECOMMENDATION: None BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION 2017-2018 Departmental Business Plans and operating budgets were presented to committee on December 5 and 6, 2016 followed by Decision Package deliberations on December 13th. A number of requests for additional information and for changes to workplans and the budget binder were made by Committee during the presentations and deliberations. At the January 11, 2017 meeting, these information requests were reviewed and Committee directed staff to prepare the information for the February 28, 2017 meeting. Information Requested 1. Summary of prior year budget commitments. This information was included as part of the 2017-2018 financial plan binder. Refer to section 1.1.7 / page 1-7. 2. Provide five year (2017-2021) financial plan figures highlighting any significant changes. Refer to Attachment 1 for a summary of next five years. 3. Explain the reclassification of revenue budgets from “other” to “sale of services” and “contributions”. Prior to implementation of Agresso many of the City’s revenues transactions were lumped together for reporting purposes. Whether the revenue related to a grant, cost recoveries, or fees for providing services, these transactions were grouped within the caption “other revenue”. To provide better transparency to Council and the public, as well as to provide departments with more accurate information to assist with managing budgets,
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
the City began to de-aggregate these transactions and classify them into the categories that better reflected the nature of the funds. An example of this can be seen on the Solid Waste budget on page 5-42 of the 2017/2018 business plan. In 2016 MMBC revenue budget was grouped as “other revenue”, however when payment was received it was categorized as “sale of services”. In 2017 the budget was reclassified as “sale of services” to fall in line with where the payment was getting coded. The total budget for MMBC revenue did not change from 2016 to 2017, just the line in which it is reported. 4. Explain (citing a specific example), why 2016 figures from 2016 binder don’t match 2016 figures from 2017 binder. The primary factor contributing to the differences between the 2016 binder and the 2017 binder is due to organization re-structuring subsequent to the printing of the binder material. These changes include the consolidation of fleet under the public works umbrella in accordance with recommendations from the fleet CIA, the re-organization of certain recreation facility maintenance accounts out of the recreation section and in to the facility section. An example of the fleet restructure can be seen below. Original 2016 Budget Binder
Personnel Contracted and other services Materials and supplies Telephone, utilities and rent Insurance and claims
Public Works Fleet 559,800 131,200
2016 Figures Recast in 2017 Budget Binder Total As Shown Parks Fire on Page 5-39 of Public Works Note 1 Note 2 2017 binder 559,800 137,200 35,700 732,700 131,200 6,000 63,000 200,200
510,700
405,200
142,700
78,500
626,400
1,201,700
105,500 1,201,700
40,300 326,200
27,400 204,600
173,200 1,732,500
Note 1: In the 2016 budget binder, the costs associated with the Parks portion of the fleet are contained within the budget listed on page 11-16 of the 2016 budget binder. Note 2: In the 2016 budget binder, the costs associated with the Fire portion of the fleet are contained within the budget listed on page 7-3 of the 2016 budget binder 5. List of vacant positions. This information will be provided as part of the agenda package for the closed portion of the meeting on March 7th. 6. Options on developing inclusive employment opportunities within the current funding structure. We have identified a variety of specific tasks that are currently performed by casual employees in different Departments across the City. We will work with Avia Employment Services to confirm that potential candidates will meet the necessary capabilities to perform these tasks. Avia will provide support to the successful candidate to ensure a successful on-boarding process and will assist with promoting the opportunity within their local client base. Tasks that have been identified as potential for this initiative include child minding, summer camp leaders, clerical pool staff and specific tasks within the scope of the Operations Maintenance Worker and Parks
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
Maintenance Worker. The successful candidate will have the status of “casual” and will be required to be a member of CUPE. The hours of work will vary depending on the assignment, time of year and scope of the task. Tasks will be meaningful and exist within existing service levels. We have chosen tasks that are generally public facing in nature. Our intent will be to establish this opportunity right away and provide Council with a briefing on the evaluation of the program after six months of operation. 7. Information on Arts & Culture reserve contributions and other reserve funding. Refer to Attachment 2 for information on the arts and culture reserve and other reserves that are funded in a similar manner. 8. Land Coordinator Decision Package – Provide More Information on Options 2 & 3. Refer to the closed BIN report dated January 31, 2017. 9. Explain how changes in cost share % impacted the public safety building budget. There are two main drivers of changes to the public safety building budget. i.
Changes to overall operating costs: These changes are based on estimated the costs to operate the public safety building.
ii.
Cost share percentage: The overall operating costs are shared between Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam based on a formula which considers population and police activity in each city. An increase to Port Coquitlam’s cost share percentage means that the portion of overall operating costs funded by the City also increases.
Between 2015 and 2016 the overall operating costs for the public safety building decreased. However, the cost share percentage increased from 32.66% to 33.45% meaning that Port Coquitlam funded a larger portion of the overall operating costs. Overall the net of these two items resulted in a minor increase to the public safety building budget of $45,100. Between 2016 and 2017 the overall operating costs for the public safety building increased, but the cost share percentage decreased from 33.45% to 32.44%. Overall the net of these two items resulted in a minor decrease to the public safety building budget of $36,200. 10. What are the tools for dealing with repeat 911 calls, similar to false alarm charges. The risk of using a tool similar to false alarm charges is that it could deter legitimate 911 callers. This risk outweighs the benefit of deterring the small number of repeat callers. For this reason, maintaining an outreach/education approach is recommended.
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
11. Provide a table showing year over year difference in allocation of internal charge budget to explain what has moved in 2017. Internal charge totals remain the same between 2016 and 2017, however the allocation has changed due to redistributing a portion of the water and sewer recoveries allocated to Engineering & Public Works in 2017 and allocating those recoveries to the departments that provide support to the water and sewer utility. Department Corporate Support Development Services Engineering & Public Works Finance Recreation Sewer Utility Solid Waste Utility Water Utility Grand Total
2016 (381,300) 70,500
2017 (539,800) 69,300
Change (158,500) (1,200)
(2,981,900) (733,200) (14,200) 1,298,700 1,368,700 1,372,700 -
(2,531,500) (1,011,200) (45,600) 1,298,700 1,387,400 1,372,700 -
450,400 (278,000) (31,400) 18,700 -
12. Solid Waste – Separate recycling to clearly show subsidy from taxes for the MMBC program. To keep standardized templates, the MMBC program is kept within the solid waste section. Consistent with the way that all of the business plan budgets are shown, the line titled “net operating budget” represents the amount funded from general taxation for that area. Page 5-42 lists the budget for the solid waste section. As green and garbage are 100% funded through rates, the amount of $534,200 shown on the line for net operating budget represents the tax funded portion of the recycling program. 13. Planning – provide rationale for the proposed Economic Development initiative The policies of the Official Community Plan identify the need for a comprehensive review of current employment opportunities and anticipated demand to ensure we are able to meet the needs of the community and sustain a strong economic sector. Port Coquitlam is fortunate to have robust industrial and commercial sectors which contribute to a strong economy and almost 18,000 employment opportunities. In 2011, over 32,500 Poco residents were in the labor force but only 21% of our population lived and worked in our community. The proposed employment review would set targets, goals and policies to guide land use designations and new developments to promote a balance of employment opportunities that is distributed between sectors, skill set and income levels. 14. Recreation Facilities – more information on internal rent charges. Why was internal rent introduced? In 2004/2005 staff initiated a process to demonstrate how the recreation programs were factoring in the facility costs in the rates charged to the public to show costs were incurred comparable to what an external organization renting City facility space to run a program would be charged. The internal rent system was introduced to show facility costs within each functional area program budget – i.e. children’s programs, aquatic programs.
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
Is there a transfer of cash? There is no transfer of actual cash; it is an internal transaction between two operating accounts. At the end of every month, staff would allocate costs to the program rental accounts based on facility space used by programs and with an offsetting recovery applied to the applicable maintenance materials and staff accounts by the same dollar amount. Therefore, these offsetting transfers did not impact net budget. Why are we no longer doing Internal Rent transfers? Admin time spent by staff to transfer funds from program accounts to the maintenance accounts for each facility was significant, for both recreation and finance. Once Active Net was introduced, the Macro previously developed for CLASS was not transferrable (and it did not work very well with CLASS either), manual calculations were required leading to higher risk of errors and more time spent calculating transfer amounts, doing the transfers and double checking the process was done correctly. Due to internal rent transfers to maintenance accounts, these accounts did not reflect the true costs of facility maintenance as much of the cost was reflected in the program accounts. This made isolating facility costs more challenging with multiple program accounts to consider. There was no impact on the net operating budget for each facility, the division or the department – these were in/out transfers within facility budgets. As this process is done by other recreation depts. as far as we know, there was no set system to automate transactions for internal rent. 2017 budget structure isolates facility maintenance costs for each recreation complex: The current GL structure in each facility budget allows us to isolate costs at a detailed level – cleaning supplies, pool and arena maintenance and supplies, all maintenance staff costs, utilities, etc. Program budgets do not include facility maintenance expenses and have been adjusted to account for not doing the internal transfers to maintenance. Facility Costs Reflected in Fee Structure: Facility costs per room are calculated and factored into the program fee cost calculations based on the fee structure charged to rental groups. These are listed in the fees and charges bylaw. Standard practice in facility management is to isolate the facility costs vs. spreading costs among program areas. 15. Facilities – provide information on allocation of rental income and the tax impacts of transferring funds to reserve (i.e. Salvation Army). Historically, the City has used rental income to offset the cost of operating/maintaining the rental facilities. Typically operating costs have exceeded rental income received. In the cast of the Salvation Army, rental income (approximately $56,000) exceeds budgeted maintenance costs (approximately $11,000). The excess $45,000 of revenue currently offsets general taxation. Transferring the excess revenue to the land sale reserve instead of using it to offset taxation would result in a tax increase of $1.37 per average home or 0.06% to fund the difference. 16. Inquire with the Davies family to see if they have a digital copy of the History Book. The family does not have a digital copy of the book, nor do the designer, publisher, or printer.
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
17. Is it possible for a publisher to print copies from the hard copy? Yes, this would require scanning the hardcopy at a cost of approximately $3,000. Printing would be an additional $35 - $75 per book dependent on order quantities. 18. Provide additional details on cost of arbitration & number of positions that can’t be permanently filled due to arbitration. Legal costs will vary depending on the complexity of the arbitration. However, on average an arbitrator costs approximately $2500 per day. Often the arbitration’s are held off site in hotel conference space at a cost of approximately $500 per day. Costs for arbitration are typically shared equally between the Union and the Employer. Pending arbitration is scheduled for four days of hearings. There are two positions that can’t be permanently filled due to arbitration; a number of positions that were previously held up have been resolved through further negotiation with the union. 19. 3-year trend on number of grievances Grievance stats form part of the HR indicators and measures found within Attachment 4. 20. Metro Vancouver survey results related to absenteeism Refer to in Attachment 3. 21. Provide cost of Community Police Coordinator The Community Police Office Manager compensation is approximately $82,000 inclusive of the employer’s portion of benefits. 22. Building – should the division be set up as a separate cost centre, to ensure that application fees cover the cost of the building inspection service on a cost-neutral basis? Additional information will be provided on the current budget structure. The following table provides a comparison of actual Revenues versus Expenditures for the Building Division (includes both building and plumbing) for the past three years and indicates that our revenues are largely in line with expenditures. In 2016, the continued strength in the housing market and a number of industrial buildings contributed significantly to the boost in our revenue from building permits. An additional contributing factor to the 2016 increase is that of revenue from Filming Permits. On the savings side for 2016, a reduction in the amount of overtime for union staff for 2016 led to the reduction overtime costs, in part because we were able to engage retired inspectors on a casual basis to meet the increased work load related to the higher number of permit applications. Given uncertainty around the timing and magnitude of future development, it is recommended to continue to be conservative with revenue budgeting.
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
YEAR
BUILDING DIVISION REVENUE vs EXPENDITURES COMPARISON REVENUE EXPENDITURES $ DIFFERENCE
% DIFFERENCE
2014 2015 2016
$1,314,261 $1,275,642 $1,407,783
$1,236,531 $1,303, 316 $1,159,037
+ $77,730 -$27,674 +$248,746
+ 6.3% -2.1% +21.5%
3 Year Average
$1,332,562
$1,232,961
+$99,457
+8.6%
Respectfully Submitted by,
______________________________ Farouk Zaba, Manager of Financial Planning and Systems
Attachment 1: Significant Changes to Five Year Financial Plan Attachment 2: Reserve History Attachment 3: Metro Vancouver Survey Results Attachment 4: Indicators and Measures
February 16, 2017
TO:
Budget and Infrastructure Committee
FROM:
Farouk Zaba Manager of Financial Planning and Systems
SUBJECT:
2017-2018 BUSINESS PLAN FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 2017-2018 Departmental Business Plans and operating budgets were presented to committee on December 5 and 6, 2016 followed by Decision Package deliberations on December 13th. A number of requests for additional information and for changes to workplans and the budget binder were made by Committee during the presentations and deliberations. This report provides the additional information requested. RECOMMENDATION: None BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION 2017-2018 Departmental Business Plans and operating budgets were presented to committee on December 5 and 6, 2016 followed by Decision Package deliberations on December 13th. A number of requests for additional information and for changes to workplans and the budget binder were made by Committee during the presentations and deliberations. At the January 11, 2017 meeting, these information requests were reviewed and Committee directed staff to prepare the information for the February 28, 2017 meeting. Information Requested 1. Summary of prior year budget commitments. This information was included as part of the 2017-2018 financial plan binder. Refer to section 1.1.7 / page 1-7. 2. Provide five year (2017-2021) financial plan figures highlighting any significant changes. Refer to Attachment 1 for a summary of next five years. 3. Explain the reclassification of revenue budgets from “other” to “sale of services” and “contributions”. Prior to implementation of Agresso many of the City’s revenues transactions were lumped together for reporting purposes. Whether the revenue related to a grant, cost recoveries, or fees for providing services, these transactions were grouped within the caption “other revenue”. To provide better transparency to Council and the public, as well as to provide departments with more accurate information to assist with managing budgets,
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
the City began to de-aggregate these transactions and classify them into the categories that better reflected the nature of the funds. An example of this can be seen on the Solid Waste budget on page 5-42 of the 2017/2018 business plan. In 2016 MMBC revenue budget was grouped as “other revenue”, however when payment was received it was categorized as “sale of services”. In 2017 the budget was reclassified as “sale of services” to fall in line with where the payment was getting coded. The total budget for MMBC revenue did not change from 2016 to 2017, just the line in which it is reported. 4. Explain (citing a specific example), why 2016 figures from 2016 binder don’t match 2016 figures from 2017 binder. The primary factor contributing to the differences between the 2016 binder and the 2017 binder is due to organization re-structuring subsequent to the printing of the binder material. These changes include the consolidation of fleet under the public works umbrella in accordance with recommendations from the fleet CIA, the re-organization of certain recreation facility maintenance accounts out of the recreation section and in to the facility section. An example of the fleet restructure can be seen below. Original 2016 Budget Binder
Personnel Contracted and other services Materials and supplies Telephone, utilities and rent Insurance and claims
Public Works Fleet 559,800 131,200
2016 Figures Recast in 2017 Budget Binder Total As Shown Parks Fire on Page 5-39 of Public Works Note 1 Note 2 2017 binder 559,800 137,200 35,700 732,700 131,200 6,000 63,000 200,200
510,700
405,200
142,700
78,500
626,400
1,201,700
105,500 1,201,700
40,300 326,200
27,400 204,600
173,200 1,732,500
Note 1: In the 2016 budget binder, the costs associated with the Parks portion of the fleet are contained within the budget listed on page 11-16 of the 2016 budget binder. Note 2: In the 2016 budget binder, the costs associated with the Fire portion of the fleet are contained within the budget listed on page 7-3 of the 2016 budget binder 5. List of vacant positions. This information will be provided as part of the agenda package for the closed portion of the meeting on March 7th. 6. Options on developing inclusive employment opportunities within the current funding structure. We have identified a variety of specific tasks that are currently performed by casual employees in different Departments across the City. We will work with Avia Employment Services to confirm that potential candidates will meet the necessary capabilities to perform these tasks. Avia will provide support to the successful candidate to ensure a successful on-boarding process and will assist with promoting the opportunity within their local client base. Tasks that have been identified as potential for this initiative include child minding, summer camp leaders, clerical pool staff and specific tasks within the scope of the Operations Maintenance Worker and Parks
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
Maintenance Worker. The successful candidate will have the status of “casual” and will be required to be a member of CUPE. The hours of work will vary depending on the assignment, time of year and scope of the task. Tasks will be meaningful and exist within existing service levels. We have chosen tasks that are generally public facing in nature. Our intent will be to establish this opportunity right away and provide Council with a briefing on the evaluation of the program after six months of operation. 7. Information on Arts & Culture reserve contributions and other reserve funding. Refer to Attachment 2 for information on the arts and culture reserve and other reserves that are funded in a similar manner. 8. Land Coordinator Decision Package – Provide More Information on Options 2 & 3. Refer to the closed BIN report dated January 31, 2017. 9. Explain how changes in cost share % impacted the public safety building budget. There are two main drivers of changes to the public safety building budget. i.
Changes to overall operating costs: These changes are based on estimated the costs to operate the public safety building.
ii.
Cost share percentage: The overall operating costs are shared between Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam based on a formula which considers population and police activity in each city. An increase to Port Coquitlam’s cost share percentage means that the portion of overall operating costs funded by the City also increases.
Between 2015 and 2016 the overall operating costs for the public safety building decreased. However, the cost share percentage increased from 32.66% to 33.45% meaning that Port Coquitlam funded a larger portion of the overall operating costs. Overall the net of these two items resulted in a minor increase to the public safety building budget of $45,100. Between 2016 and 2017 the overall operating costs for the public safety building increased, but the cost share percentage decreased from 33.45% to 32.44%. Overall the net of these two items resulted in a minor decrease to the public safety building budget of $36,200. 10. What are the tools for dealing with repeat 911 calls, similar to false alarm charges. The risk of using a tool similar to false alarm charges is that it could deter legitimate 911 callers. This risk outweighs the benefit of deterring the small number of repeat callers. For this reason, maintaining an outreach/education approach is recommended.
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
11. Provide a table showing year over year difference in allocation of internal charge budget to explain what has moved in 2017. Internal charge totals remain the same between 2016 and 2017, however the allocation has changed due to redistributing a portion of the water and sewer recoveries allocated to Engineering & Public Works in 2017 and allocating those recoveries to the departments that provide support to the water and sewer utility. Department Corporate Support Development Services Engineering & Public Works Finance Recreation Sewer Utility Solid Waste Utility Water Utility Grand Total
2016 (381,300) 70,500
2017 (539,800) 69,300
Change (158,500) (1,200)
(2,981,900) (733,200) (14,200) 1,298,700 1,368,700 1,372,700 -
(2,531,500) (1,011,200) (45,600) 1,298,700 1,387,400 1,372,700 -
450,400 (278,000) (31,400) 18,700 -
12. Solid Waste – Separate recycling to clearly show subsidy from taxes for the MMBC program. To keep standardized templates, the MMBC program is kept within the solid waste section. Consistent with the way that all of the business plan budgets are shown, the line titled “net operating budget” represents the amount funded from general taxation for that area. Page 5-42 lists the budget for the solid waste section. As green and garbage are 100% funded through rates, the amount of $534,200 shown on the line for net operating budget represents the tax funded portion of the recycling program. 13. Planning – provide rationale for the proposed Economic Development initiative The policies of the Official Community Plan identify the need for a comprehensive review of current employment opportunities and anticipated demand to ensure we are able to meet the needs of the community and sustain a strong economic sector. Port Coquitlam is fortunate to have robust industrial and commercial sectors which contribute to a strong economy and almost 18,000 employment opportunities. In 2011, over 32,500 Poco residents were in the labor force but only 21% of our population lived and worked in our community. The proposed employment review would set targets, goals and policies to guide land use designations and new developments to promote a balance of employment opportunities that is distributed between sectors, skill set and income levels. 14. Recreation Facilities – more information on internal rent charges. Why was internal rent introduced? In 2004/2005 staff initiated a process to demonstrate how the recreation programs were factoring in the facility costs in the rates charged to the public to show costs were incurred comparable to what an external organization renting City facility space to run a program would be charged. The internal rent system was introduced to show facility costs within each functional area program budget – i.e. children’s programs, aquatic programs.
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
Is there a transfer of cash? There is no transfer of actual cash; it is an internal transaction between two operating accounts. At the end of every month, staff would allocate costs to the program rental accounts based on facility space used by programs and with an offsetting recovery applied to the applicable maintenance materials and staff accounts by the same dollar amount. Therefore, these offsetting transfers did not impact net budget. Why are we no longer doing Internal Rent transfers? Admin time spent by staff to transfer funds from program accounts to the maintenance accounts for each facility was significant, for both recreation and finance. Once Active Net was introduced, the Macro previously developed for CLASS was not transferrable (and it did not work very well with CLASS either), manual calculations were required leading to higher risk of errors and more time spent calculating transfer amounts, doing the transfers and double checking the process was done correctly. Due to internal rent transfers to maintenance accounts, these accounts did not reflect the true costs of facility maintenance as much of the cost was reflected in the program accounts. This made isolating facility costs more challenging with multiple program accounts to consider. There was no impact on the net operating budget for each facility, the division or the department – these were in/out transfers within facility budgets. As this process is done by other recreation depts. as far as we know, there was no set system to automate transactions for internal rent. 2017 budget structure isolates facility maintenance costs for each recreation complex: The current GL structure in each facility budget allows us to isolate costs at a detailed level – cleaning supplies, pool and arena maintenance and supplies, all maintenance staff costs, utilities, etc. Program budgets do not include facility maintenance expenses and have been adjusted to account for not doing the internal transfers to maintenance. Facility Costs Reflected in Fee Structure: Facility costs per room are calculated and factored into the program fee cost calculations based on the fee structure charged to rental groups. These are listed in the fees and charges bylaw. Standard practice in facility management is to isolate the facility costs vs. spreading costs among program areas. 15. Facilities – provide information on allocation of rental income and the tax impacts of transferring funds to reserve (i.e. Salvation Army). Historically, the City has used rental income to offset the cost of operating/maintaining the rental facilities. Typically operating costs have exceeded rental income received. In the cast of the Salvation Army, rental income (approximately $56,000) exceeds budgeted maintenance costs (approximately $11,000). The excess $45,000 of revenue currently offsets general taxation. Transferring the excess revenue to the land sale reserve instead of using it to offset taxation would result in a tax increase of $1.37 per average home or 0.06% to fund the difference. 16. Inquire with the Davies family to see if they have a digital copy of the History Book. The family does not have a digital copy of the book, nor do the designer, publisher, or printer.
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
17. Is it possible for a publisher to print copies from the hard copy? Yes, this would require scanning the hardcopy at a cost of approximately $3,000. Printing would be an additional $35 - $75 per book dependent on order quantities. 18. Provide additional details on cost of arbitration & number of positions that can’t be permanently filled due to arbitration. Legal costs will vary depending on the complexity of the arbitration. However, on average an arbitrator costs approximately $2500 per day. Often the arbitration’s are held off site in hotel conference space at a cost of approximately $500 per day. Costs for arbitration are typically shared equally between the Union and the Employer. Pending arbitration is scheduled for four days of hearings. There are two positions that can’t be permanently filled due to arbitration; a number of positions that were previously held up have been resolved through further negotiation with the union. 19. 3-year trend on number of grievances Grievance stats form part of the HR indicators and measures found within Attachment 4. 20. Metro Vancouver survey results related to absenteeism Refer to in Attachment 3. 21. Provide cost of Community Police Coordinator The Community Police Office Manager compensation is approximately $82,000 inclusive of the employer’s portion of benefits. 22. Building – should the division be set up as a separate cost centre, to ensure that application fees cover the cost of the building inspection service on a cost-neutral basis? Additional information will be provided on the current budget structure. The following table provides a comparison of actual Revenues versus Expenditures for the Building Division (includes both building and plumbing) for the past three years and indicates that our revenues are largely in line with expenditures. In 2016, the continued strength in the housing market and a number of industrial buildings contributed significantly to the boost in our revenue from building permits. An additional contributing factor to the 2016 increase is that of revenue from Filming Permits. On the savings side for 2016, a reduction in the amount of overtime for union staff for 2016 led to the reduction overtime costs, in part because we were able to engage retired inspectors on a casual basis to meet the increased work load related to the higher number of permit applications. Given uncertainty around the timing and magnitude of future development, it is recommended to continue to be conservative with revenue budgeting.
February 16, 2017 2017-2018 Business Plan Follow-up Information
YEAR
BUILDING DIVISION REVENUE vs EXPENDITURES COMPARISON REVENUE EXPENDITURES $ DIFFERENCE
% DIFFERENCE
2014 2015 2016
$1,314,261 $1,275,642 $1,407,783
$1,236,531 $1,303, 316 $1,159,037
+ $77,730 -$27,674 +$248,746
+ 6.3% -2.1% +21.5%
3 Year Average
$1,332,562
$1,232,961
+$99,457
+8.6%
Respectfully Submitted by,
______________________________ Farouk Zaba, Manager of Financial Planning and Systems
Attachment 1: Significant Changes to Five Year Financial Plan Attachment 2: Reserve History Attachment 3: Metro Vancouver Survey Results Attachment 4: Indicators and Measures
