Regional Roads Network Comparison April 17, 2019 Purpose To respond - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
regional roads network comparison
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Regional Roads Network Comparison April 17, 2019 Purpose To respond - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 31, 2024 336 likes •819 views

Regional Roads Network Comparison April 17, 2019 Purpose To respond to Motion #136-18 July 2018 Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Chief Administrative Officer Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund Access

slide-1
SLIDE 1

April 17, 2019

Regional Roads Network Comparison

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Purpose – To respond to Motion #136-18

July 2018 Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Chief Administrative Officer – Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund – Access to Funding report for information; And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac direct staff to fully investigate the process for accessing the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund – Top Up (OCIF-TU) grant for core infrastructure, including consultation with legal counsel, Frontenac County Chief Administrative Officers and other municipalities; And Further That a full report and recommendation be presented to County Council in January 2019, with a view towards a first application to the fund in August 2019. And Further That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the County's Member Municipalities.

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Background

  • The City of Kingston/County of Frontenac

Restructuring Order (February 1997 – Article 6.2) states that Frontenac “… is not deemed to be a county for road purposes and shall not

  • wn, maintain, repair or construct road” Link -

R.O.

  • Builds upon two prior regional roads reports

completed (C.N. Watson 2011 and D.M. Wills 2014)

  • This presentation has been reviewed and

endorsed by the CAO’s, Public Works Managers and Treasurers

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Purpose of the Presentation

  • Provide context for regional roads

discussions

  • Compare the road infrastructure/funding for:

1.

United Counties of Leeds & Grenville (UCL&G),

2.

County of Lanark,

3.

County of Frontenac,

4.

County of Lennox & Addington (L&A)

5.

County of Hastings

  • Hastings & Frontenac do not have County Roads Network
  • The 5 Counties include a total of 45 municipalities,
  • East to west geography and weather are generally similar

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Process

Municipal Financial Information Returns for the last three years (2015-17) provided data for 13 parameters:

  • 1. Number of Households
  • 2. Population
  • 3. Road Grants
  • 4. Assessment
  • 5. Tax Levy
  • 6. Roads Expenditures
  • 7. Total Book Value for Roads
  • 8. Total Reserves
  • 9. Dedicated Roads Reserves

10.Number of Public Works Employees 11.Lane km (Paved and Unpaved) 12.Total Bridges & Culverts 13.Total km of Roads Rated Good+

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Base Data and Grants

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

30% 24% 16% 15% 15% Roads as % of Total Assessment

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

5,698, 25% 4,407, 19% 3,871, 17% 3,768, 16% 5,316, 23% Lane km and % of Regional Lane km

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

211, 23% 224, 24% 121, 13% 170, 18% 208, 22% Number and % of Total Regional Bridges & Culverts

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

15,481,635, 28% 11,410,647, 20% 5,742,120, 10% 8,568,384, 15% 15,134,959, 27% Relative % of Grants Received in Regional Comparison

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

3,573, 19% 3,186, 17% 3,754, 20% 2,972, 15% 5,517, 29% % of Total Land Area (km2)

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

$2,717 $2,589 $1,483 $2,274 $2,847

$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Grant $/Lane km (2015-17)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

71% 51% 54% 85% 31%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Pct of Roads Rated Good+ (2017)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Base Data Summary

  • Grants per lane KM, Frontenac received:

$1,364 less/KM than Hastings $1,234 less/KM than UCL&G $1,106 less/KM than Lanark $791 less/KM than L&A

  • Only 54% of Frontenac Roads are rated

Good+ (L&A = 85%)

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Frontenac has:

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

  • Of the total road

network

17%

  • Of the total

assessment

16%

  • Of the total land area

20%

  • Of the total bridges &

culverts

13%

But only receives 10% of the grant dollars

slide-17
SLIDE 17

UCL&G Lanark L&A Hastings Frontenc if $ 10,517,622 10,022,831 8,802,605 11,020,961 Frontenac Actual $ 5,742,120 5,742,120 5,742,120 5,742,120 Difference $ 4,775,502 4,280,711 3,060,485 5,278,841 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

What if Frontenac was Funded at the Same /lane km $’s as the Other Counties?

Three Year Summary

slide-18
SLIDE 18

UCL&G Lanark L&A Hastings Frontenc if $ 10,517,622 10,022,831 8,802,605 11,020,961 Frontenac Actual $ 5,742,120 5,742,120 5,742,120 5,742,120 Difference $ 4,775,502 4,280,711 3,060,485 5,278,841 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

What if Frontenac was Funded at the Same /lane km $’s as the Other Counties?

Three Year Summary

slide-19
SLIDE 19

UCL&G Lanark L&A Hastings Frontenc if $ 10,517,622 10,022,831 8,802,605 11,020,961 Frontenac Actual $ 5,742,120 5,742,120 5,742,120 5,742,120 Difference $ 4,775,502 4,280,711 3,060,485 5,278,841 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

What if Frontenac was Funded at the Same /lane km $’s as the Other Counties?

Three Year Summary

slide-20
SLIDE 20

UCL&G Lanark L&A Hastings Frontenc if $ 10,517,622 10,022,831 8,802,605 11,020,961 Frontenac Actual $ 5,742,120 5,742,120 5,742,120 5,742,120 Difference $ 4,775,502 4,280,711 3,060,485 5,278,841 Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

What if Frontenac was Funded at the Same /lane km $’s as the Other Counties?

LOW HIGH Three Year Summary Average = $4.34M

slide-21
SLIDE 21

A Deeper Dive

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

$1.10 $1.24 $1.00 $1.47 $1.30

$- $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Tax $'s Gen/$ of Assess. (Front. = $1, 2017)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

$91 $83 $43 $59 $54

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Millions

Total Tax Levy ($M 2017)

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

$134 $105 $67 $98 $81

$- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Millions

Total Road Expenditures (2015-17)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

26% 22% 28% 25% 13%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Road Exp. as a Pct of Total Budget (2017)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

0.0% 46.6% 48.8% 59.8% 51.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

CoF FI SF CF NF

Road Exp. As a Pct. Of Total Budget (2017)

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

$7,865 $7,955 $5,809 $8,658 $5,056

$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

  • Ave. Annual Exp. by County/Lane KM (2015-17)
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

$5,813 $6,721 $4,907 $5,933

$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000

CoF FI SF CF NF

Road Exp. Per Lane KM (2017)

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

1,811 1,801 1,781 1,144 3,095 3,887 2,606 2,090 2,624 2,221

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

L&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Unpaved Paved

32% Unpaved 41% Unpaved 47% Unpaved 30% Unpaved 58% Unpaved Lane kms Paved/Unpaved (2017)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

75% 111% 110% 79% 108%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Reserve $ as a Pct of Tax Levy (2017)

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

37% 57% 57% 34% 28%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Reserve $ as a Pct of Total Budget (2017)

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

$1,355 $2,551 $884 $1,891 $1,028

$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Dedicated Road Reserves/Lane km (2017)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

$43,148 $40,302 $30,601 $56,005 $20,874

$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Book Value/Lane km (2017)

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

42 41 47 38 57

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

UCL&G Lanark Frontenac L&A Hastings

Lane km/Employee (2017) In Frontenac, each PW employee is “responsible” for 47 lane KM of road, or 9 KM more than in L&A

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Summary

Good News

  • Frontenac’s over all reserve position is strong
  • Frontenac’s tax burden is low. All comparators

collect more tax dollars/dollar of assessment

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Summary

Not So Good News – Part One

  • Frontenac is receiving less ($3 to $5M) Grant

dollars than the comparator group (per lane km)

  • Frontenac is only ahead of Hastings in

spending per lane KM

  • Frontenac’s percent of roads rated Good+ is

less than UCL&G and L&A

  • Frontenac is only behind Hastings in the

percent of unpaved roads

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Summary

Not So Good News – Part Two

  • Frontenac has the lowest dedicated roads

reserve position in the comparator group

  • Frontenac has the highest percentage of road

expenditures/total expenditures

  • Frontenac Public works employee are

“responsible” for more lane KMs than all comparators except Hastings

  • Frontenac’s book value per lane KM is only

ahead Hastings

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Six Options

Regional Roads – Full County Model 6 Status Quo 1 Regional Roads – Limited County Involvement 2 Regional Roads – Contracted Engineering – Limited County Involvement 3 Regional Roads – County Augments Resources at Selected Municipality 4 Regional Roads – County Resources 5

slide-40
SLIDE 40

What Would Option Three Look Like?

  • No County involvement other than submission of grant prepared by

a Consultant in consultation with Public Works Managers and Treasurers

  • Per solicitors advice, the County would secure a 1% ownership

stake in the regional roads network, including bridges and culverts

  • Would not involve any on the ground work – no plowing, grading, etc
  • Consultant hired by the County
  • Consultant would be responsible for developing regional priorities,

in conjunction with PWMs, the tendering coordination, contract/construction administration of regional roads projects

  • Grant application, administration and reporting completed at the

township level

  • Consultant would be responsible for the establishment and

reporting of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and regular reporting to all Councils

  • Likely budget estimate ($200K in 2020 - $300K 2021 – phased in
  • ver 2 years)

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-41
SLIDE 41

What Would Option Five Look Like?

  • The most “modest” form of regional roads coordination
  • Per solicitors advice, the County would secure a 1% ownership

stake in the regional roads network, including bridges and culverts

  • Would not involve any on the ground work – no plowing,

grading, etc

  • Similar to L&A would involve the hiring of a “Regional Engineer”

(early 2020) + an Engineering Construction Technician (mid/late 2020)

  • Regional Engineer would be responsible for developing regional

priorities, in conjunction with PWMs, the tendering coordination, contract/construction administration of regional roads projects

  • Grant application, administration and reporting
  • Establishment and reporting of Key Performance Indicators

(KPIs) and regular reporting to all Councils

  • Likely budget estimate ($200K in 2020 - $300K 2021 – phased

in over 2 yrs + consultant for design/project management as required)

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Questions & Discussion

  • Does Frontenac wish to proceed with

consideration of a regional coordination roads model?

  • If so, are we willing to invest to make it

happen? In particular, we do not have the staff necessary to implement a regional model

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Final Thoughts

  • While good work is being completed by our

municipalities, it is clear that Frontenac roads fall short on a number of different metrics compared to

  • ur regional comparators

Our resources are stretched and our grants are low

  • The establishment of regional roads systems could

assist with improving access to funding and coordination of contractors and supplier

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Next Steps if We …

No Action – Remain Status Quo That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the presentation of the Chief Administrative Officer, Regional Roads Network Comparison, and take no further action.

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Next Steps if We …

Yes – CAO Recommendation

  • Resolved That the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the

Chief Administrative Officer report – Regional Roads – Overview and Background Report for information;

  • And Further That the Council of the County of Frontenac request

that each member Council review and consider this report by May 31, 2019.

  • And Further That each member Council formally endorse a

petition to the Province of Ontario to remove Section 6.2 from The County of Frontenac/City of Kingston Restructuring Order, 1997 related to the prohibition of County involvement in roads.

  • And Further That the County engage a consulting team to assist

with the development of a business plan for both options 3 and 5, including consultation with each Council and the study be to a maximum upset limit of $40,000 to be funded from the County portion of the recently announced Municipal Modernization Fund (MMF).

  • And Further That the report be reviewed at a joint meeting of all

Councils and a preferred option be finalized prior to the end of September 2019 for consideration during the 2020 budget cycle.

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Regional Roads Network Comparison – April 17, 2019