The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMay 18, 2022 - Special CouncilTHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA MUNICIPAL OFFICE 56169 Heritage Line, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers – Held Virtually Wednesday, May 18, 2022 6:00 p.m. The May 18, 2022 Special Council Meeting will be held virtually via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube. The Public may watch the Council meeting utilizing the Municipality of Bayham YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpY8wjivr1zSsi0tvbgtUrg 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 3. PRESENTATIONS A. Performance Concepts re 2022 Service Sharing Review 4. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL A. By-law No. 2022-036 Being a by-law to confirm all actions of Council 5. ADJOURNMENT 2022 Service Sharing Review TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE + MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM Council Briefings May 18th /19th 2022 TODAY Kick-Off + Rapid Data Transfer + Malahide & Bayham Staff Consultations Preliminary Stage –Formulate Planning, Building and By- Law Enforcement Shared Service Delivery Models Middle Stage – Deep Dive to Design Preferred Service Sharing Delivery Model Final Stage – Construct a Comprehensive Shared Service Agreement to Implement Preferred Model Securing Economies of Scale Service Sharing Approaches Across Ontario Municipalities Share staff positions (Buy, Sell or Fund in Common) Share specialized equipment (Buy, Sell or Fund in Common)Shared IT Tools/Platforms Merge municipal service delivery systems within an expanded boundary (e.g., Winter Control borderless service or Fire Hub/Spoke) Create a Special Purpose Body to serve multiple municipalities (e.g., Planning or Recreation Boards) Bulk purchasing of Contracted Services/materials, etc. Shared Contractor Arrangements (consolidating around a sole contractor) Strategic/Implementation Challenges to Ponder Balancing benefits received with cost allocation burden across sharing partners –Win/Win •A technical measurement challenge •Creating clear win/wins The politics of Control vs Results •Who calls the shots? A documented process is critical! •Say for Pay –mitigating control anxiety with formal agreements/accountability mechanisms Malahide “AS IS” Service Delivery Building (Key Priority)By-law Enforcement (Key Priority)Planning (Second Level Priority) Staff Team Accredited CBO (.85 FTE)Portion of CBO (.15 FTE) on complex files + contractor oversight Development Services Coordinator Vacant Development Services Manager FTE Contractor Resources RSM Building Consultants (Billable Hours) MEU Consulting (Billable Hours) utilized on as needed basis MEU has multiple municipal clients/frequent staff turnover…questions re. longer term service delivery stability Monteith Brown (Billable Hours as needed) No “go to” Dev Engineering Contractor Service Levels Legislated timeframes CloudPermit portal/workflow tool deployed but not universally used by Building applicants Complaint driven service level No meaningful performance tracking/public reporting in place (e.g. closure rates) Actual performance results unclear/requiring added focus Upcoming Planning Act/Bill 109 compliance challenges Medium term greenfield housing demand in Springfield (potentially) No CloudPermit deployment yet for Planning applications $ Model Permit Fees + Building Reserve Property tax supported Relatively low Planning Fees + Deposit Draw Down (100% recovery contractor billable hours) Bayham “AS IS” Service Delivery Building (Key Priority)By-law Enforcement (Key Priority)Planning (Second Level Priority) Staff Team No accredited Building staff Fire Chief .3FTE Development Services Coordinator Contractor Resources Contractor CBO 3 days/week (fixed allotment of Billable Hours) MEU Consulting (Billable Hours) utilized on as needed basis MEU has multiple municipal clients/frequent staff turnover…questions re. longer term service delivery stability IBI Group (billable hours as needed) CJDL Engineering Contractor (not always available given file conflicts) Service Levels Legislated timeframes No portal/workflow tool Significant level of low-tech applicant support Complaint driven service level Reasonable performance tracking/public reporting in place (e.g. closure rates) Upcoming Planning Act/Bill 109 compliance challenges Imminent greenfield Sub-division growth pressures/files (600-800 units) No DAP portal/workflow tool $ Model Permit Fees + Building Reserve Property tax supported Relatively low Planning Fees + Deposit Draw Down (100% recovery contractor billable hours) Factors Affecting Design of Malahide/Bayham Shared Service Options ►By-law enforcement off “corner of the desk” negatively impacting Building Services capacity (Malahide) and Fire/Emergency Services capacity (Bayham) ►Accredited Building staff exceedingly difficult to find/retain (Sellers’ market) ►Contractor driven Planning model is effective in mitigating Bill 109 risk ►Existing municipal staff provide customer service access points in both Malahide and Bayham Offices…need to preserve for Building/Planning applicants ►Securing stable/sustained resourcing capacity is the critical objective of Service Sharing in a constrained municipal sector labour market… ►Shedding existing resources not appropriate… ►Redeploying/reallocating contractor resources could be appropriate/necessary ►Governance and other aspects of Service Sharing can be phased in over the medium term once resourcing capacity risks have been mitigated Service Sharing Model Components to Mix & Match Service Delivery Mechanisms Governance Options Resourcing: Staff vs Contractor Cost Recovery Tools Measurable Service Levels/Results Buy Purchased Service Agreement Internal Staff Resource/FTE Property Tax Supported Provincially Regulated Sell Shared Services Board Contracted Service Hours DAP Fees Council Mandated Shared Deposit Draw- Down model Contractual Obligation Enforcement Revenues Customer Service Level Service Sharing Options -Planning Buy/Sell/Shared Delivery Governance Resourcing –Staff v Contractor Cost Recovery Tools Measurable Service Levels/Results Option A •Shared Delivery •Shared Services Board •Staff •Contractors •Deposit Draw- Downs •Legislated •Shared Service Agreement Option B •Malahide Sells •Bayham Buys •Purchased Service Agreement •Staff •Contractors •Deposit Draw- Downs •Legislated •Purchased Service Agreement Option C •Bayham Sells •Malahide Buys •Purchased Service Agreement •Staff •Contractors •Deposit Draw- Downs •Legislated •Purchased Service Agreement Service Sharing Options -Building Buy/Sell/Shared Delivery Governance Resourcing –Staff v Contractor Cost Recovery Tools Measurable Service Levels/Results Option A •Shared Delivery •Shared Services Board •Harmonized Building By-law •Accredited Staff •Accredited Contractors •Common Permit Fee Schedule •Reserve Balances •Legislated Option B •Malahide Sells •Bayham Buys •Purchased Service Agreement •Harmonized Building By-law •Accredited Staff •Accredited Contractors •Common Permit Fee Schedule •Reserve Balances •Legislated Option C •Bayham Sells •Malahide Buys •Purchased Service Agreement •Harmonized Building By-law •Accredited Staff •Accredited Contractors •Common Permit Fee Schedule •Reserve Balances •Legislated Service Sharing Options –By-Law Enforcement Buy/Sell/Shared Delivery Governance Resourcing –Staff v Contractor Cost Recovery Tools Measurable Service Levels/Results Option A •Shared Delivery •Shared Services Board •Harmonized By-laws •Staff •Contractors •Property Taxes •Enforcement Revenues •Council Mandated •Shared Service Agreement Option B •Malahide Sells •Bayham Buys •Purchased Service Agreement •Harmonized By-laws •Staff •Contractors •Property Taxes •Enforcement Revenues •Council Mandated •Purchased Service Agreement Option C •Bayham Sells •Malahide Buys •Purchased Service Agreement •Harmonized By-laws •Staff •Contractors •Property Taxes •Enforcement Revenues •Council Mandated •Purchased Service Agreement Evaluation of Sharing Model Options -Building Option A: Shared Delivery Option B: Malahide Sells Option C: Bayham Sells Strengths •Retain existing Malahide’s accredited staff capacity and Bayham’s accredited contractor •Both municipalities benefit from leveraging existing Cloud Permit license •Retain existing Malahide’s accredited staff capacity •Both municipalities benefit from leveraging existing Cloud Permit license •Retain competencies of the Bayham’s accredited contractor Issues to Consider •Challenges of harmonizing By-laws and Fee Schedules •Need to redeploy or expand accredited contractor capacity from Bayham (3 days per week) •Need to address accredited staff capacity for Malahide (Current CBO) •No ability to leverage Cloud Permit Evaluation of Sharing Model Options – By-law Enforcement Option A: Shared Delivery Option B: Malahide Sells Option C: Bayham Sells Strengths •A new BLEO would free up CBO and Fire Chief capacity •Reduced contractor capacity required •Improved oversight of contractor by dedicated BLEO •Opportunity for service level improvement •A new Malahide BLEO would free up an estimated 20% of Building Staff capacity to address increasing demand •Frees up capacity of Bayham Fire Chief •Reduced contractor capacity required •A new Bayham BLEO would free up an estimated 33% of Fire Chief capacity to address legislated requirements (Fire Master Plan & Community Risk Assessment) •Frees up capacity of Malahide CBO •Reduced contractor capacity required Issues to Consider •A new BLEO 0.5 FTE required in both budgets •Challenges of harmonizing By-laws •A new BLEO 1.0 FTE required in Malahide budget •Challenges of harmonizing By-laws •A new 1.0 BLEO FTE required in Bayham budget •Challenges of harmonizing By- laws Evaluation of Sharing Model Options - Planning Option A: Shared Delivery Option B: Malahide Sells Option C: Bayham Sells Strengths •Retain internal Planning Tech capacity/expertise in both municipalities •Retain competencies of Monteith Brown + IBI for both municipalities •Opportunity for new shared Dev Eng. contractor •Both municipalities benefit from leveraging existing Cloud Permit license •Malahide retains internal Planning Tech capacity/expertise •Malahide retains competencies of Monteith Brown •Both municipalities benefit from leveraging existing Cloud Permit license •Bayham retains internal Planning Tech capacity/expertise •Bayham retains competencies of IBI Issues to Consider •Complexity of two internal staff teams + two contractor teams across one borderless service area •Need to address staffing capacity at Bayham Office •Need to address staffing capacity at Malahide •No ability to leverage Cloud Permit A Workable Model to Consider Malahide Sells Building Bayham Sells By-law Enforcement Shared Planning Approach Description •Leverages current Malahide CBO •Takes over Bayham’s existing 3 days/week contractor (potentially expanded to 5 days) •No erosion of Building capacity due to “off the corner of the desk” By-law Enforcement (critically important given forecast development activity) •New dedicated BLEO shared 50/50 (due to inability to forecast complaint-driven workload distribution between the 2 municipalities) •Phased By-law harmonization •Each municipality retains existing “intake” Planning staff at respective Offices •Each municipality retains/shares existing contractor resources (at least for now) •Phased harmonization of DAP processes + deposit draw-down $ models for upcoming development •Shared implementation/usage of Cloud Permit tool Next Steps ►Bayham and Malahide Councils provide feedback/direction on core elements of a viable Shared Service Option (consensus needed) ►Performance Concepts/Dillon will proceed with Stage 2 Detailed Build-out of a go-forward Preferred Option ►Bayham and Malahide Councils to Review Stage 2 Detailed Build-out in June ►Performance Concepts will develop an Implementation Agreement for CAOS to further consider in early July THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2022-036 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 18, 2022 WHEREAS under Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, the powers of a municipal corporation are to be exercised by the Council of the municipality; AND WHEREAS under Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the powers of Council are to be exercised by by-law; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it advisable that the proceedings of the meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law. THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the actions of the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham in respect of each recommendation and each motion and resolution passed and other action by the Council at the Special Council meeting held May 18, 2022 is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law. 2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk of The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the Council including executing all documents and affixing the Corporate Seal. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 18th DAY OF MAY 2022. ____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK