Peterborough County - My First 100 Days,

By Troy Speck

Introduction

The Beginning

I began my journey at the end of September, 2017 as the new Chief Administrative
Officer (CAO) for the County of Peterborough with a plan that had been developed as a
result of a request made by Council as part of the CAO selection process. That request
was that I outline what I would do during my first 100 days as the County’s new CAO.
I outlined for Council that my main goal would be to “Listen”. Too many new leaders try
to make their mark on an organization by making too many big changes, too soon. It is
important for me not to enter a new organization with preconceived notions, such as
believing that every municipality is the same, or that I have all the answers, because the
truth is: They’re not; and I don’t.
I felt (and still feel) that it is important for me to get an understanding of how things have
been done in the past, and why they have been done that way because, even if
something is not being done the way it “usually” is in other places, there may be very
good organizational background and context as to why it’s being done the way it is. It
may even be done better here than elsewhere. In other words, even though as a new
CAO it is important for me to assess what changes may need to be made, I believe it is
important also for me to respect the history and experiences of the people who are, and
have been, working here. It can be a delicate balance at times. But one cannot expect
to develop a realistic path forward for an organization without first understanding
existing plans, policies and processes, and getting to know something about the
organization’s people (Council; Staff; Community Partners and Stakeholders;
Volunteers and Citizens), by listening, observing and asking questions. So I committed
to doing all of that – to conduct what I called a “Listening Tour”, and to report back to
Council with my early impressions after my first 100 days as CAO.

Purpose

This report outlines what I feel I have learned during my first 100 days, what I have
heard, and what some of my recommendations are for how we move forward as an
organization. It is my hope that these observations and recommendations will help
inform and focus future strategic planning and organizational development for the
County of Peterborough.

1
The First 100 Days

Attached as Appendix “A” to this report is an outline I presented to Council of the goals I
was setting for my first 100 days, and the actions I hoped to be able to take in
furtherance of those goals. Attached as Appendix “B” is an overview of the timeline
within which I hoped to take those actions.
For the most part, I have been able to accomplish the actions outlined in these
appendices, though there is still work to do. I have been able to visit many of the
County’s work sites/locations and meet many staff, but not all. As part of a current
review and assessment of the County’s facilities needs, I will be attending all of the sites
in May, 2018. I have also booked a ride-along with County EMS for May 2018 to start
getting a small taste of the on-the-ground, day-to-day experiences of our EMS staff,
who are responding admirably to an ever-increasing volume of calls for service.
I would like to thank members of County Council, and their local municipal Staff, who
were gracious in giving their time to meet with me, and to start educating me about their
communities – their goals, priorities, successes and challenges. Thank you also for
welcoming me and my family. We look forward to engaging in the County community.
While I have been able to meet with all of the external community partners and
stakeholders outlined in the appendices, as well as others, those relationships will
obviously be ongoing and will require ongoing participation on my part. Attached as
Appendix “C” to this report is an overview of the meetings and interviews I attended
during my first 100 days, as planned in my original “First 100-days” presentation to
Council.
As planned, in addition to sending out an introductory video to all County Staff, I asked
for their input through an anonymous survey that posed the following questions:
1. What are you most proud of about Peterborough County?
2. What are you least proud of about Peterborough County?
3. What’s working well at Peterborough County?
4. What do you think needs to be changed or improved?
I will be meeting with the senior management team to review the survey’s results, with a
view to identifying one or two high priority action items that can be commenced sooner
rather than later.
I feel strongly that an organization can have as much budget, or as many plans in place
as it wants, but it is the organization’s people who move things forward, implement the
plans, deliver the services and “get the work done”. They are the organization’s daily
connection to the services we provide, and the community we serve; and they are vital
to our success as an organization. In the County context, this includes the Staff of each
of the local communities within the County, and of the City of Peterborough as well. My
interviews, interactions and discussions with all of these Staff, and the Staff survey
results, have all been a great help to me in better understanding the County, and have

2
helped me develop my thoughts for how we might best move forward. For that, and for
their friendly, welcoming nature, I thank them.
Obviously, 100 days is a relatively short period of time in the life of a municipal
organization, and an equally short period of time in which to gather information and fully
assess an organization, especially one that has been around for more than 160 years.
As such, this report can never be perceived to be a definitive treatise on the County’s
needs, strengths and shortcomings. It is to be expected that there may well be those on
County Council, among Staff and/or members of the Community who disagree with
some aspects of this report and its recommendations. In putting this report forward, it is
not my intent to emphasize perceived faults and foibles, nor is it my intent to wag a
figurative finger at past or existing practices. It is my hope that aspects of this report will
ring true, will spark further discussion and, through collaboration with Council, Staff and
Community Partners, will serve to assist the County in continuing to realize its vision of
being a very special place for people, where planning and stewardship protect a diverse
landscape, lifestyle and sense of community.
Respectfully,
Troy Speck
Chief Administrative Officer
April 2018

3
General Impressions

Overall, the impression one gets of the County of Peterborough is a very positive one.
Generally, the working relationship between Council and Staff is seen as a good one,
usually exhibiting good mutual support and respect.
A common theme among members of the County Management Team is one of pride in
the capability and dedication of their staff, and their ability to “pull together” to get things
done. Senior managers cite the organization’s culture as having been supportive,
though perhaps more individually supportive and somewhat departmentally fractured,
with some sense of competition between departments, particularly as relates to budget
allocation. A number of senior managers expressed the need for the senior
management team to work more strategically and collaboratively together, making
decisions based on identified corporate needs and priorities, and not just individual
departments’ needs and priorities. In the staff survey results as well, there was a strong
belief expressed that some departments exist in silos, and that improved
communication between departments, and between management and front- line staff,
should be one of the organization’s goals.
Council and Staff feel the County has been seen as a leader, and has earned the
respect of other eastern Ontario municipalities, and of Provincial ministries. The County
has been very involved in working with the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC)
and has been a key player in the successes of EOWC-led initiatives such the
establishment of the Eastern Ontario Regional Network (EORN) and provided crucial
leadership and support toward the success of EORN’s efforts to improve internet
access across eastern Ontario, as well as the recent commencement of contracted
board and project support for the EORN Board and staff. This leadership and support
will continue to be needed for future initiatives, such as EORN’s more recent initiative
seeking to fill gaps in, and increase capacity of, cellular coverage that are standing in
the way of the region’s economic growth.
By and large, community partners, the City of Peterborough, and the local municipalities
speak favourably about their past dealings and relationships with the County and
County Staff. By most accounts, a good rapport exists between County staff and staff
at local municipalities and community partners. For staff in the County townships, the
County is seen as possessing, and being willing to share, expertise in some areas that
are beyond the capacities of the local municipalities to afford (ex. Planning; Information
Technology, etc.) and that sharing of expertise is very much appreciated. Some
sentiment has been expressed that, at times, the County can be set in old ways, and
perhaps needs to be more open to consider modernizing and/or doing things in ways
different than they have been done in past. In the survey results, some County staff
expressed similar sentiments. The County and local municipalities have had a number
of successes in collaborating on joint initiatives and services, and there certainly
appears to be support for exploring further such opportunities.
Like any municipal organization, the County struggles to balance service needs and
expectations against realistically available resources, both human and financial.

4
Based on all of the discussions in which I have participated, and documents I have read
over the past 100 days or so, I have identified what feel like five (5) key theme areas on
which to elaborate and make some recommendations, along with a number of
corresponding sub-themes. The five (5) key theme areas include:

 Key Service Challenges

 Building and Improving upon Successes in Collaboration

 Improving Communication & Engagement

 Operationalizing and Reporting on Strategic Objectives

 Organizing the County for Future Success

The remainder of this report will delve into more detail regarding each of these key
theme areas under the headings below, outlining the reasons behind the conclusions I
have reached and the recommendations I am making. At Appendix “D” to this report,
the reader will find a summary of all of the recommendations made throughout the body
of this report.

1.0 Key Service Challenges

Background

The core services delivered by the County of Peterborough may be characterized in one
of three ways:
1) Services delivered to the Public by the County itself;

2) Services delivered to the Public, on behalf of the County, by external

organizations and/or agencies, with funding from the County of
Peterborough; and

3) Services that support and enable the work being done in (1) and (2).

The services can be broken down as follows:

1) Public Services delivered by the County itself:

 Emergency Medical Services (Paramedics) – in both County and City of

Peterborough
 County Roads and Bridges (Engineering, Design & Operation)
5
  Waste Reduction Services (Recycling; Composting & organics collection;
household hazardous waste)
 Land Use Planning approvals and Land Division
 County Forests
 Geographic Information Services (GIS)
 Lang Village Pioneer Museum

2) Public services delivered, on behalf of the County, by other

organizations/agencies (“service partners”), with County funding, as follows:
Service Delivered By
Social Services City of Peterborough

- Ontario Works
- Children’s Services
- Employment Services
- Homelessness Services
- Community Outreach Services
Housing (Affordable housing; social housing) City of Peterborough
Provincial Offences Act Administration City of Peterborough
Long Term Care Fairhaven LTC – jointly owned by
City and County of Peterborough

Public Health Peterborough Public Health

Landfill Jointly-owned by City & County

Economic Development Greater Peterborough Area

Economic Development
Corporation (aka Peterborough &
the Kawarthas Economic
Development – PKED)
3) Support Services delivered by County Staff:

 Finance & Purchasing

 Human Resources
 Information Technology
 Facilities Management
 Administration; Legislated Services and County Clerk
 GIS

6
In reviewing and observing these services over my first 100 days, I have identified the
following Key Service Challenges:
1) Understanding and Communicating the County’s relationship with its
service partners
2) Addressing Infrastructure Needs
3) Increasing Demand for Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
4) The Changing Land Use Planning Landscape
5) Updating the County’s financial policies and processes
6) Retention and Recruitment

This report will discuss each of these challenges under separate headings, below.

1.1 Understanding, Communicating and Managing the County’s

Relationship with Its Service Partners

Over the first 100 days, I have observed a number of things related to the County’s
relationship with its service partners, particularly its relationship with the City of
Peterborough. Generally, the comments I received were that the relationship “is a good
one” and that the delivery of certain services on each other’s behalf has been “working
fine”. Though one gets the sense that, over time, some distance may have developed
between the County and some of the services being provided on its behalf. I have noted
that this appears to manifest itself from time to time in various manners, such as some
loss of organizational memory as to how things got to where they are now, or why
certain things are done the way they are; and/or some lack of understanding of the
specifics of the agreements between the service partners.
As between the City of Peterborough and County of Peterborough many, though not all,
of the services being provided on each other’s behalf are provided under the terms and
conditions of a Consolidated Municipal Service Management Agreement (the “CMSM
agreement”). The CMSM agreement covers the following services:
City-Provided/Managed Services:

 POA
 Social Services
o Ontario Works – Admin., Employment. Addiction
o Ontario Works – Mandatory Benefits
o Ontario Works – Discretionary benefits
o Homemakers and Nurses
o Homelessness – incl. Hostels & Drop-in Centres
o Community Partnerships & Family Services
o Community Social Plan

 Housing

7
County Provided/Managed Services:

 Land Ambulance
The CMSM agreement has been in place for a number of years, and is administered by
a Joint Services Steering Committee (JSSC) comprised of four (4) members of each of
the councils of the County and the City. Under the terms of the CMSM agreement, the
JSSC is responsible for reviewing and approving draft work plans and budgets, and
making recommendation to the Councils of the City and County , including with regard
to staffing levels and service levels of the various services. Recommendations of the
JSSC may be forwarded to either the City Council, the County Council, or both,
depending upon the issue being considered. Generally speaking, recommendations
regarding the services provided/managed by the City will go to City Council, and
recommendations regarding Land Ambulance will go to County Council.
Budgets recommended for all CMSM services, however, are to go to both Councils for
consideration. The CMSM agreement lays out a “Dispute Resolution” process in the
event there is any disagreement between City Council and County Council.
I have noted that there are, at times, misunderstandings regarding the nature of the
relationship between the parties. For example, I have on different occasions had one or
two members of Council question why certain decisions related to the Landfill and/or
organics collection were not brought before the JSSC. As outlined above, landfill and
organics collection are not part of the mandate of the JSSC. As another example, I have
also noted comments of members of County Council who, when City-provided services
are brought forward as part of the annual budget process, seem to feel that budgets are
“set” and they have no control over them. As outlined above, this is not actually the
case, as the CMSM agreement requires approval of budgets by both City and County
Councils, and a dispute resolution mechanism is identified to address instances of
disagreement between the parties.
It also appears there may have been occasions on which the requirement to bring
recommendations regarding services and service levels have not been brought to the
JSSC. As an example, EMS staff previously brought forward a recommendation to
explore community para-medicine and some provincial funding that was available for
same. While County Council were made aware of the proposed application for funding
for a pilot community para-medicine program and decided not to support it at the time,
City members of the JSSC were apparently never provided with the information or given
opportunity to vote on it. Ideally, the proposal ought to have been brought before the
JSSC first, with a recommendation from the JSSC, prior to going to Council.
Such misconceptions and/or deviations from the intent of the CMSM agreement may be
attributed to any number of reasons: passage of time since the agreement was first
developed; changes in members of Council and Staff over time; insufficient ongoing
review and orientation regarding the agreement and its terms; the practicalities of
getting budgets passed in a timely fashion; or any combination of the above.
With respect to the Joint Services being delivered on each other’s behalf (EMS; Social
Services; POA; etc., ), what appears may be needed is some better clarification around
what/when the respective Councils (City and County) have opportunities for input into,
8
and approval of: a) the services and service levels being delivered; and b) the budgets. .
In addition, challenges are faced due to the misalignment of budget timelines of the City
and the County, with the City budget often being approved well in advance of the
County’s.
Also of benefit may be some greater clarity around what are the expectations regarding
regular reporting and opportunities to ask questions and seek clarification regarding
performance of the service? For example, the County recently received a report on final
year-end Social Services statistics, to be presented to Council. There was initially no
expressed intent to provide a presentation accompanying the report, or an opportunity
for Council to ask questions. Upon request, City staff were very accommodating in
agreeing to provide a report and an opportunity for Council to field questions, though
County staff couldn’t remember the last time a presentation had accompanied such a
report.
For all intents and purposes, the delivery of services by external organizations and
agencies on the County’s behalf, and with County funding, is much like a “contracting-
out” arrangement. Typically, success in any contracting-out arrangement can be
attributed to a couple of key factors, namely: i) a good ongoing relationship between the
contractor and the party contracting out; and ii) active management of the contract by
the party contracting out, to ensure that expected outcomes are being achieved, and to
take or recommend action when they are not. The ongoing relationship between the
County and the City of Peterborough, as well as between the County and organizations
such as Fairhaven and Peterborough Public Health, appears to be on a good footing;
however one must question the extent to which the ‘contract for services’ is being
adequately ‘managed’. For example, to date, no County Staff have been formally
assigned the responsibility of managing those ‘contracted out’ services (i.e.: Social
Services; Housing; etc.) In some cases there are Council representatives appointed to
sit on the boards of those organizations (ex. Fairhaven; Public Health), which is helpful
in terms of ensuring County input on decision-making by the boards. However, asking
elected representatives to take on the more administrative role of reporting back to
County Council regarding the organization’s performance and ability (or lack thereof) to
achieve expected outcomes, is not an ideal scenario.
Finally, I would note that change is something of a constant at the County. There are a
number of senior staff who are relatively new: the CAO; the County’s Director of
Finance; and we will soon have a new County Clerk. Such change is often
accompanied by some loss/lack of background knowledge, and so all the more
important it becomes to have in place tools to ensure that the organization remains
focused on relationships with parties providing services on the County’s behalf, and
effectively managing and understanding the status of those relationships.
For all the reasons outlined above, I make the following recommendations regarding the
services being provided on behalf of the County by other organizations and agencies,
with County funding:

9
Recommendation:

That, in anticipation of new Council orientation following the 2018 municipal

election, and also in anticipation of future negotiations within the next 1 – 2 years
to renew arrangements such as the CMSM agreement with the City of
Peterborough, and the agreement with PKED, County staff arrange for the
preparation of a report and presentation to Council regarding all of the services
being delivered by external organizations and agencies with County funding.
Such report to include:

o A brief outline of the history behind existing arrangements and

agreements;
o An overview of the terms of any existing agreements and/or enacting
or governing legislation;
o Analysis of the cost/benefit of the existing arrangement to the
County and its residents; and
o Identify any future changes recommended for discussion and/or
consideration.

Recommendation:

In renegotiating shared services agreements between the County and City,

discussion should be held to clarify: 1) what/when the respective Councils have
opportunities for input into, and approval of: a) the services and service levels
being delivered (and/or proposed changes to them); and b) the budgets; 2)
identifying and agreeing upon key performance indicators (KPIs) of expected
service delivery outcomes; and 3) clarifying the expectations in terms of regular
reporting back to the respective councils, with opportunity to ask questions and
seek clarification about performance of the service.

Recommendation:

That specified senior staff at the County have designated as part of their
operating duties, to be the County staff liaison with each of those services being
provided on the County’s behalf by external organizations or agencies, and to
have the responsibility of monitoring the outcomes being delivered by, and
ensuring adequate reporting to Council on those services.
Alternately,
That discussions be held with the service-providing agencies (i.e.: City; PKED;
Fairhaven) about having their senior staff attend semi-regularly at County senior
management team meetings to share information and provide reports and
updates.

10
Economic Development
As with the services outlined above, rather than being an in-house function as it is in
some other municipalities, Economic Development is a service that is provided by an
organization other than the County-proper, namely, the Greater Peterborough Area
Economic Development Corporation, now known more commonly as Peterborough and
the Kawarthas Economic Development (PKED). The County and City both provide the
bulk of PKED’s annual funding , and the County and City CAO sit as members of
PKED’s Board of Directors.
Through discussions with various stakeholders in the community, I came to understand
that past relationships and perceptions regarding PKED may have been seen as less
than favorable, particularly as regards the organization being able to demonstrate value-
for-money, and some of the County municipalities feeling the organization may be too
City-centric. However, what has even more strongly come through in my discussions
has been feedback that those perceptions have changed considerably over the past
couple of years.
Through outreach conducted by a new President and CEO, in 2016 PKED learned that
Township CAOs were unaware of the ongoing activities of PKED, and also that any
presentations or reports that were presented to County Council, were not trickling back
to Township administration.
Following through on these learnings in September 2016, PKED hosted a collective
CAO meeting, inviting all CAOs in each Township, the County and City. At this meeting,
PKED presented their draft 2017 Business Plan, to seek input and identify any township
challenges, needs or opportunities for collaboration. PKED staff were asked to start
sending out County Quarterly reports to each CAO so that they see the information
being provided to County Council. Township CAOs were also asked how regularly they
would like to meet with PKED and advised that it would be reasonable to meet annually,
which is now taking place.
In 2016, PKED had limited time devoted to the local municipalities. There was one staff
person that worked 4 days per week. This staff person spent 2 days per week on
Agriculture and Rural work and 2 days in the Business Advisory Centre assisting
entrepreneurs. In April 2017, PKED re-organized the department to be more responsive
to township needs and increased the staff dedicated to Ag/Rural (Julia Wood) from 2
days a week to full time.
PKED now participates on the:

 Asphodel Norwood Economic Development Committee

 Selwyn Township Economic Development Committee
 Trent Lakes Economic Development Committee
 Havelock-Belmont-Methuen Economic Development Committee (just invited in
March 2018)

11
Cavan Monaghan has an active Economic Development Officer (EDO) of their own. As
is often the case, townships with EDOs tend to interact the least with a regional
economic development organization, though this is still a relationship that PKED would
like to foster. In Otonabee-South Monaghan, PKED staff meet routinely with the CAO,
and just recently have been able to identify a way to participate in the township’s RED
application about mixed use zoning for agricultural lands. In Douro-Dummer, PKED has
completed greater outreach meets regularly with Township staff.
Annually, PKED presents to each township council. These presentations have been
well received and the presentations are used to talk about initiatives that PKED has
undertaken or local success stories in each township – through Summer Co., Starter
Company plus etc.
PKED has also reached out to each Township to discuss unique initiatives for each
township with PKED assisting and setting aside $1000 per township to advance a
unique project. As an example – Asphodel Norwood hosted a business appreciation
evening and PKED were able to put dollars toward that celebration. 6 townships were
unable to identify projects to work on together. In 2018 they have discussed this
concept again in each Township and there appears to be more discussion and planning
taking place in 2018.
Opportunities
PKED would like to conduct more Township outreach for their Business Advisory Centre
services, and has identified local libraries as an effective place to host these outreach
events. Some townships like the concept and others do not.
Other opportunities or key projects include:

 Highway 407

 County Official Plan

 Pride of Place

 Wayfinding

 Mobile Tourism

 Agri-tourism

12
Other opportunities PKED would like to explore include:

 Economic Development Strategies for each community

 North Kawartha wants to be included in the Shimano Classic Cycling Routes –

this is a great opportunity to explore.

 Selwyn has completed their Economic Development Strategy and working

through the economic development committee – PKED will try and determine
how they can work with the township to advance their plans.

 For Tourism – PKED is now a liaison for Buckhorn District Tourist Association.
They also have recommended a training and merchandising program for the
HBM tourism office to assist their part time staff at the tourism office.

Through discussions with PKED’s President and CEO, and in line with one of the
recommendations made earlier in this report regarding services that are “contracted out”
to other organizations, it has been suggested that PKED could work more closely with
the County CAO and Directors to ensure that economic development issues are
identified and information-sharing occurs, potentially by having PKED attend the
County’s senior management team meetings on a semi-regular basis. This is an
opportunity that will be examined more closely.
Sustainable Peterborough
The Sustainable Peterborough (SP) Plan was endorsed by City and County Councils in
2012, with the establishment of the Sustainable Peterborough Coordinating Committee
under PKED. SP is funded annually by the City and County through the PKED budget
and the collaborative structure of SP has enabled varied funding streams to be
leveraged. Recent projects such as the Climate Change Action Plan and specific
corporate and community plans and targets identified and approved for each by all
partners (County, City, 8 Townships and 2 First Nations) have grown the scope of SP
and the PKED Board, City and County are undergoing an organizational and structural
review of SP to ensure a clean governance structure.

1.2 Addressing Infrastructure Needs

In interviews most, if not all, members of County Council expressed concern regarding
the County’s ongoing struggle to adequately keep up with the maintenance needs
related to crucial County infrastructure such as roads and bridges, which is a universal
concern of municipalities, especially rural municipalities, who have far lower densities of
tax-paying properties per kilometre of road to support the cost of infrastructure than do
their urban counterparts.

13
There is no magic to funding infrastructure deficits. For the most part, funding to
maintain the County’s infrastructure will likely come from one of 4 sources:
1) Grants from other orders of government (i.e.: Federal & Provincial government);
2) Grants from other external agencies (ex.: FCM; Trillium; Donations)
3) Municipal Taxation; and/or
4) Borrowing.
The Federal and the Provincial governments face funding challenges of their own. and
so before they give funds to municipalities, they want to know that municipalities have a
good handle on what their needs truly are; and that municipalities are making best use
of the tools they have available to them to raise their own funds (i.e.: taxation &
borrowing)
In order to fully understand what its infrastructure needs truly are, the County is heading
down the road of developing a proper asset management plan, which will ultimately take
into consideration not only roads and bridges, but all County infrastructure.
In terms of making best use of the tools the County has available to it for raising funds
on its own, if the County is able to take action and objectively demonstrate that:
i) It has optimized the use of its own taxation powers in a thoughtful and
reasonable way; and
ii) It has maximized its ability to borrow (again, in a thoughtful and reasonable
way),
then the County may not only have been able to make additional funds of its own
available for infrastructure renewal, but it will also then be in a position to show the
Provincial and Federal governments that it has been diligent in its approach to utilizing
available municipal tools, and that any further deficits are deserving of funding from
those other orders of government.
In order to help show whether the County is making reasonable efforts to optimize use
of its own taxation powers, I suggest that staff be directed to conduct a review of
municipal taxation levels within the County as compared to other similar municipalities.
Borrowing is another tool available to the County to address infrastructure needs. In the
Fall of 2017, County Council approved a new Debt Management Policy, which outlines
the circumstances in which the County will consider incurring debt, and the County’s
acceptable limits for taking on debt (i.e.: the County will not take on debt that would
result in an annual repayment of more than the County’s annual repayment limit set by
the Province. Of note, the debt management policy makes it clear that the “County may
use long term debt to fund major rehabilitation of existing infrastructure where funding
cannot be accommodated within the tax supported capital budget. As such, the policy
table is set for the County to take on debt to support infrastructure renewal, as have a
number of other municipalities.
As one example locally, the City of Kawartha Lakes recently leveraged a $25 million
debenture to address critical infrastructure projects. The $25 million debenture (long
term loan) provides a robust tax-supported capital reserve to draw from. The debenture

14
will be paid down over 10 years, with the first 4 years seeing the largest impact as a
number of aging buildings, fleet and assets are brought up to a more stable
maintenance level. The Plan includes a 4.5% tax levy increase over each of the first 4
years, with a reduction in the following years
It would be beneficial for the County to have some discussion with CKL to better
understand the borrowing strategy they have developed, and possibly also to retain
some expert assistance to help the County develop its own strategy to incorporate
borrowing as one component of its infrastructure renewal program.

Recommendations:

That County council consider directing staff to begin a review of municipal

taxation levels within the County, as compared to other similar municipalities, for
the purpose of determining whether current County taxation levels are
reasonable in all the circumstances;
That the County continue to move forward with development of a full asset
management plan as aggressively as possible; and
That the County research infrastructure-supporting debenturing plans put in
place by other municipalities such as City of Kawartha Lakes, and retain expert
assistance in developing the County’s own strategy to incorporate borrowing as
one component of its infrastructure renewal program.

1.3 Increasing Demand for Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

The County’s EMS department faces continually increasing call volumes. With a
growing and aging population within the County and City of Peterborough, increases in
call volumes are not anticipated to abate in the near future. Periods with “zero
ambulance availability” are becoming a real risk.
Offload Delays
EMS enjoys a good relationship with PRHC, but hospital offload delays continue to be a
problem that occupies far too much of the paramedics’ time. These delays impact our
ability to respond efficiently (i.e.: at times more ambulances need to be brought into
service than would be required absent the delays) and also impacts the day-to-day work
experience of our paramedics, often contributing to the problem of paramedics not
having sufficient time to even take required rest and meal breaks. Despite ongoing
efforts working together with PRHC to address the issue (ex. funding by the Ministry of
Health for one 24-hour registered nurse who oversees the triaging and placement of
patients brought in by ambulance within the emergency department), PCCP statistics
show that, in 2017, out of approximately 14,000 patients transported in the year, they
still experienced offload delays of greater than 30 minutes in 1547 instances, or 11 % of
the time. In addition to loss of ambulance availability, these delays equate to
approximately $102,200 in wages and benefits lost to ambulance offload.

15
Offload delays are not unique to Peterborough County, and are an issue across the
province, and in other countries. In response to reports of offload delays in the UK, in
November 2017 the UK’s National Health Service’s (NHS) Director of Acute Care
issued a letter to hospitals which, among other things, outlined four (4) key principles
that local health care systems and Emergency Departments (ED) should note. They
were:

 The patients in the urgent care pathway who are at highest risk of preventable
harm are those for whom a high priority 999 emergency call has been received,
but no ambulance resource is available for dispatch.

 Acute Trusts must always accept handover of patients within 15 minutes of an

ambulance arriving at the ED or other urgent admission facility (e.g.
medical/surgical assessment units, ambulatory care etc.).

 Leaving patients waiting in ambulances or in a corridor supervised by ambulance

personnel is inappropriate.

 The patient is the responsibility of the ED from the moment that the ambulance
arrives outside the ED department, regardless of the exact location of the patient.
Excerpt from Nov. 15, 2017 letter from NHS Director for Acute Care,
Professor Keith Willett

I understand that this strong messaging by NHS to hospitals has been accompanied by
some more direct monitoring of offload delays.
It is recommended that County Council make efforts to ensure this issue is at the
forefront of AMO’s policy agenda, with a view to having the Ministry of Health as active
on the issue of offload delays as the NHS, and that the Ministry is also working with
hospitals such as PRHC to ensure they have the necessary resources to help address
the issue.
Possible Mitigation Efforts
Adding to the call volumes are a certain percentage of patients who are repeat callers.
Some who, reportedly, may call dozens of times in a year, but whose health issues may
not be truly of an emergency nature.
By all statistical accounts, the call volume is being well managed, but due to the
demographic and other factors mentioned above, call volumes continue to rise, which
inevitably leads to rising costs for response. In order to attempt to address this trend,
available alternative procedures and/or programs should be considered.
To that end, in May of 2017, the Central East LHIN announced it would be accepting
proposals for a model of health care delivery, in which paramedics utilize their training
and expertise in community-based, non-emergency care roles. To facilitate the
development of such a Community Paramedicine Program, the LHIN made funding
available. In a report to County Council in June of 2017, the County’s Chief of
Paramedics identified that much evidence has been gathered indicating that Community
16
Paramedicine Programs, tailored to local needs, will help residents live independently
longer, and reduce avoidable 911 calls, emergency room visits and hospital admissions.
The report also pointed out that PCCP’s 10- Year Plan has indicated that, in the
absence of mitigation strategies, PCCP call volume is anticipated to grow by 58% by
2026. At the time, County Council decided not to pursue the funding opportunity for
development of such a program. I would recommend that the County, in conjunction
with the City, re-investigate the development of a Community Paramedicine program as
one way to not only help local residents live independently longer, but also to reduce
avoidable 911 calls and stem the tide of increasing calls for service.
Creation of a program to educate and communicate with the Public regarding when to
call 911, as opposed to going to their doctor/clinic, etc. have been instituted in other
regions, and may also be of benefit in looking to reduce the volume of non-emergency
calls for service. Such an effort should be coordinated with other local health care
organizations, such as PHRC, Peterborough Public Health and local Family Health
Teams.
It should be noted that while these proposed mitigation strategies are expected to assist
in stemming the tide of increasing calls for service, they are not likely to entirely
preclude the need to enhance levels of service. The service will have some catching up
to do in 2019, and we do anticipate needing to add an additional 24-hour staffed
ambulance in 2019. In the absence of mitigation/call reduction strategies, future
enhancements will be required at an even greater pace than the County has seen in the
past, and greater than the rate predicted by our 10 year resource plan.
Recommendations:
That the County and City Councils make efforts to ensure the hospital offload
delay issue is at the forefront of AMO’s policy agenda, with a view to having the
Ministry of Health active in setting standards of acceptability and monitoring the
issue of offload delays; and that the Ministry is also working with hospitals such
as PRHC to ensure they have the necessary resources to eliminate unacceptable
offload delays.
That the County and City engage in re-exploring the notion of developing a
Community Paramedicine Program as a possible mitigation strategy for reducing
call volumes and correlated costs;
That, in an effort to reduce the volume of non-emergency calls for service, the
County seek to partner with other local health care organizations, such as PHRC,
Peterborough Public Health and local Family Health Teams to develop and
implement a program to educate and communicate with the Public regarding
when to call 911, as opposed to taking other available actions; and
That the County continue to work with PHRC and the Province to address the
issue of patient off-load delays at the hospital.

17
1.4 The Changing Land Use Planning Landscape

As Council has seen through reports already presented by Planning Staff, there has
been significant change to the land use planning landscape over recent years, with
the province making a number of policy amendments to the four provincial land use
plans (Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Niagara Escarpment Plan,
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Greenbelt Plan). The province has now
started publishing “draft technical guidance” documents, intended to help
municipalities implement the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017
(the “Growth Plan”). To date, they have included guidance documents related to
achieving the Growth Plan’s intensification and density targets, undertaking
watershed planning, Natural Heritage and Agricultural Land Base mapping and
related guidance documents and a Land Needs Assessment methodology. The
Province has also recently made significant changes to its Land Use Planning &
Appeals System. This, too, requires staff to learn and fully understand the new
appeals regime.
All of these changes impact the County and County staff in a number of ways. There is
an ongoing learning and training process, as Planning staff work to understand the
changing policies and to understand how they are to be implemented. There are
transitional issues. For example, at times Staff encounter changes that may not have
been completely thought through by the Province prior to implementation, causing a lot
of back-and-forth between staff, their peers, and the Ministries to understand how new
policy is to be interpreted and implemented. Staff have to meet with the owners of
developments-in-process to help them understand the impacts of changes in policy, and
in some cases, explain to owners that developments they previously thought were
achievable, may now not be. As the “messengers” in this scenario, this can place Staff
in a position of dealing with owners experiencing, understandably, a lot of frustration
and angst. Added together, these changes and their impacts have resulted, and can be
expected to continue to result, in some slow-down in the County’s ability to process land
use planning applications.
Another impact will be on the process and timing of the redevelopment of the County’s
Official Plan. At the time the County Official Plan Work Program was presented to
Council, the new Growth Plan had not yet been released. Upon it coming into force and
effect, coupled with the requirements that staff will need to address (as cited above),
there is potential for time delays and cost implications. These impacts will not be fully
assessed or realized until all relevant documents have been released by the province in
their final form.
In terms of recommendations, Staff have already brought forward, and County Council
has approved, a number of recommendations in recent months aimed at addressing
these challenges. These have included:

 Through the 2018 budget process, converting a Planning Technician position into
a full-time Planner position, to ensure greater planning expertise among the

18
 County’s staffing complement in dealing with the legislative changes and their
impacts on the County;

 Council has passed, and brought to the attention of MPPs and the Premier,
resolutions asking the province to reconsider the onerous requirements of the
policy changes and proposed guidance documents, to reconsider the extent to
which those changes are applicable in the Peterborough County context, and to
provide funding to assist the municipality(s) in implementing the change.
At this point in time, the only other

Recommendation Is:

That County Council continue to be aware of the challenges posed by changes to

provincial planning legislation and policy, and continue efforts with provincial
officials to encourage them to adopt the recommendations made by Council.

1.5 Updating the County’s Financial and Administrative Policies,

Processes and Tools

I have observed that some of the County’s financial and administrative policies,
processes and tools are not meeting the needs of Staff in terms of allowing them to be
as effective as they could be in administering the organization.
For example, the Treasurer advises that the County has no procurement hold system.
This means that bills are paid as they come in, but until received, there is no
mechanism in place to allow Finance staff to know what outstanding procurement
commitments have been made and/or what bills may still be left to come in. This makes
it very difficult to provide accurate and meaningful in-year, budget-to-actual, financial
reports, and/or to provide accurate year-end reports until late into the following year
after all invoices have been received.
As another example, expense policies need to be reviewed and updated. Examples
include the fact that there is no policy related to the number of conferences or
conventions that may be attended by staff; or no policy prohibiting, or outlining when or
whether alcohol may or may not be acceptable as part of a meal expense.
Other policies that may benefit from review include the County’s policy related to travel
mileage. Currently the County pays a mileage rate of $0.55/km to staff for the first 5,000
km of business-related travel in their own vehicles, and $0.49/km thereafter, which in
and of itself is not outside the norm for mileage rates. However, the County does not
appear to have looked at overall mileage costs, or done a cost-benefit analysis of
whether there might be merit in developing policy requiring use of a corporate vehicle,
or making use of rental vehicles for travel beyond a certain number of kilometres, rather
than continuing to pay mileage.
The County’s procurement policy was last updated in 2013, , and recent changes to
Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) and Comprehensive Economic & Trade
19
Agreement (CETA) mandate an update to our Purchasing Policy and processes to
ensure compliance with these new requirements. The County may also wish to review
purchasing approval levels, as the dollar levels in the current policy seem low
comparatively.
A number of interviewees have commented on the County’s budget process. One
concern expressed by members of Council is regarding not having received a copy of
the draft budget until the first budget meeting, which does not allow them to review in
advance and prepare meaningful questions, or even seek clarification and answers
from Staff prior to the budget meeting. Concern was also expressed that that the
budget has typically not seen completion until well into the budget year, sometimes as
late as April. This can cause delays in moving annual projects forward and providing
funding commitments to partners. In addition, challenges are faced due to the
misalignment of County and City budgets as they pertain to managed services and
budget requirements. Further, the County’s budget process considers one year only.
Many municipalities have now moved to multi-year budgeting, which provides staff and
Council with a broader view of challenges and/or opportunities anticipated for future
years.
Obviously it will take time to review and make changes to these policies and
procedures referenced above. It is recommended though that a plan to do so be put in
place, and so I make the following recommendations:

Recommendations:

That the County consider moving toward multi-year (3 yr.) budgeting to ensure
that budgets provide Council, Staff and the Public with a broader picture of the
organization’s activities and challenges beyond just one year;
That the County’s budget process be reviewed with a view to making changes in
timing and process, for example: Targeting budget approvals by late in the year
before, or January of the budget year; and providing members of Council with a
copy of the draft budget with sufficient time in advance of first budget meeting to
review and ask questions of Staff;
That the County explore moving toward bringing the Purchasing and Risk
Management functions together within one functional area, under the oversight
of a Purchasing and Risk Manager; and
That Staff bring a report back to Council by the end of 2018 recommending which
financial and administrative policies are most in need of review and updating,
and outlining a 3-year plan for completing those reviews and updates.

20
1.6 Retention and Recruitment

As stated at the outset of this report, the County’s staff are the organization’s daily
connection to the services we provide, and the community we serve; and they are vital
to our success as an organization.
Largely as a result of demographic pressures being exerted by the retirement of many
in the “baby boom” generation, organizations across the country, public and private
sector alike, are experiencing challenges with retaining and attracting qualified staff. As
identified in a report to Council in 2016, the OMERS Pension Plan estimated that 51%
of Plan members would be eligible to retire in the next 5 years, and in fact we are
seeing this happen.
Succession Planning
In one initiative aimed at addressing this challenge, the County embarked upon a
succession planning program that involved identifying key positions or groups at risk of
losing staff to retirement; identifying the competencies required for those positions;
identifying and assessing potential internal candidates for the positions; establishing
learning and development plans for those candidates; and implementing and evaluating
success against those plans.
Overall, the results of the program have been mixed; with success at times dependent
upon the attentiveness of individual departments to the issue, and/or the
training/development budgets available to each department. It appears that, once the
initial work was done to identify positions, departments were off on their own to
implement, with no reporting back to the senior management team on progress, and
often not involving the Human Resources department directly in the planning and
implementation of the staff development work.
Ideally, the senior management team should be taking a more collaborative approach to
managing the County’s corporate succession planning needs, as opposed to each
department doing their own. And this would include establishing a centralized budget for
succession training and development, so that success does not depend on which
department has larger budgets.

Recommendation:

That the County continue with its succession and talent management planning
efforts, but do so in a way that is more collaboratively coordinated, reported to,
and tracked by the senior management team. This would include some pooling of
corporate training and development budgets in order to establish a centralized
budget for succession training & development.
What else can the County be doing to ensure that the County is, and remains, an
attractive employer – a place employees want to be, and about which they will tell
others?

21
In a March 2017 article on employee retention in the Harvard Business Review, entitled:
“Why do Employees Stay? A Clear Career Path and Good Pay, for Starters”, economist
Andrew Chamberlain discusses factors that drive employee turnover, and what an
organization can do to encourage employees to stay, and also attract others.
Chamberlain outlines 3 key factors an organization should consider:
1: Provide employees with a clear progression from their current role to a
better position in their organization.
Employees want to know that, over time, there may be opportunities for them to
advance in the organization. Of course, this can never be a ‘given’, and must be
based on employee effort and merit, and not based on an expectation that a
certain length of tenure will guarantee advancement. In an organization as small
as the County, ensuring there will always be opportunities for advancement can
be difficult. In the employee survey, there was some limited comment regarding
perceiving a lack of opportunity to advance. It did not come through as a major
theme, but may merit taking a look at further.

Recommendation:

That as part of any future surveying regarding employee satisfaction, the issue of
opportunities for advancement be further explored.

2: Compensation Matters
Though not always the only or main consideration for employees in terms of
satisfaction with their work, adequate compensation is a factor to be considered.
Unsurprisingly, the issue of adequacy of compensation was raised on occasion in
the staff survey, as is often the case in such surveys. For municipal councils,
weighing the competitiveness of staff compensation against community and
political expectations regarding acceptable tax levels is an ongoing and tricky
balance.
The County’s approach in the past, and one that is common, has been to
establish a set of comparator municipalities and to set a target percentile for the
County to achieve with respect to its comparators. I understand that the County’s
target percentile for non-union salaries has been the 50th percentile of its
municipal comparators, which means that, among its comparators, the County
wishes to see its non-union salaries achieve levels that are essentially in the
middle of the pack for its comparator group – 50 percent of the comparators
having higher levels, and fifty percent of the comparators having lower salary
levels. Council has provided direction that the County’s compensation program
be externally validated once per term of Council, which is a good approach.
What is an appropriate percentile of its municipal comparator group will always
be for Council to determine. Obviously, the higher the percentile target, the more
attractive the compensation levels will be to existing and potential employees.

22
 Care should be taken to ensure that the comparator group chosen is truly and
adequately reflective of the positions and work being performed here at the
County.

Recommendations:

That the County review its comparator group(s) to ensure they adequately
represent true comparators for the County municipally and locally; and
That the County continue to externally validate the County’s compensation
program once per term of Council, and take steps to ensure that County
compensation in fact meets the percentile level established by Council.

3: Workplace Culture Matters

In a nutshell, workplace culture is about what makes a workplace somewhere

that employees want to be. Developing that culture usually involves engaging
employees themselves to answer the question: What does the place you want to
work at look like?
Based on the staff survey feedback, there are a lot of staff who feel the County is
a great place to work, and who are extremely proud of the work they do, and
deservedly so. Of course there are also areas identified for improvement. Staff
are currently in the process of completing a Facilities Master Plan and Space
Needs Analysis, which directly links to employee satisfaction and ability to
appropriately and effectively provide services. This plan will provide Council and
SMT with a framework for facilities and space planning for the next ten years.
Workplace culture can encompass any number of things, such as those
mentioned above (compensation & advancement opportunities). It can include
communication, and workplace policies and philosophies; ensuring that
employees’ values and beliefs are reflected in the way we do business.
Something I would like to work toward is the development of a “Workplace
Culture Plan” for the County of Peterborough, which will outline what employees
want our workplace to look like, and what steps we can take to get there.
One of the first steps in developing such a plan would be to conduct an employee
workplace culture/satisfaction survey: engaging a committee of employees from
across the organization to help develop the survey tool, and then to help analyse
the results and develop an action plan to address areas for improvement that
have been identified through the survey.
Ideally, this would be an ongoing process, with a new survey conducted once in
each term of council, development and implementation of action plan items over
the course of 3 – 4 years, followed by the next survey to assess how we’re doing
and where we need to make improvements next. The main thing to remember

23
 here is to garner the information and suggestions, prioritize improvements and
continuously communicate to all employees throughout the process.
Recommendation:
That the County take steps toward developing a Workplace Culture Plan,
beginning with the implementation of a cross-departmental committee of
employees who will be tasked with assisting in the development of, and
communication regarding, an employee culture/satisfaction survey, as well
as with developing action plans to improve workplace culture based on the
survey results.

2.0 Building on Successes in Collaboration

2.1 Collaboration with the City of Peterborough and Other Service-

Providing Organizations

In this regard, I will refer the reader to my comments above, in section 1.0 “Key Service
Challenges”, under the subsection entitled: “Understanding, Communicating and
Managing the County’s relationship with its service partners”. Despite the
recommendations contained therein, and the potential for some improvements, by most
accounts the relationships have been serving all parties quite well.

2.2 Relationships with the Local Municipalities Represented at the

County

There appear to be good working relationships between Staff at the County and at the
local municipalities. Through all the interviews, I received a lot of positive feedback,
expressing that County Staff have been open and willing to work collaboratively with the
municipalities. The County is often viewed as having some greater depth of expertise in
certain areas, and is willing to share that expertise with the local municipalities,
particularly in areas where those municipalities may not have substantial (or any) in-
house resources (ex. Planning; Information Technology; Human Resources, etc.)
There is a strong history of collaboration and working together on a number of joint
efforts benefitting both the County and the local municipalities, as was vividly
demonstrated in a chart presented to County Council in the fall of 2017, which outlined
approximately 19 pages of past and ongoing collaborative initiatives involving the
County and various other organizations and agencies.
Communication came up from time to time in interviews, with some suggesting they feel
the County could be doing more to make them aware in advance of any changes the
County is considering or planning, and others feeling like they would appreciate some,
or better, recognition by the County of the efforts they make to support what the County
does. (ex. a “shout-out/thank you” in County reports)

24
In interviews with Staff at the local municipalities, there is definitely a willingness and a
desire to work to identify even more opportunities for collaboration. Some feel there may
be missed opportunities to partner on funding applications. Others feel the County could
be a lead on coordinating joint training for area municipalities.
There may be opportunities for the County to act as both a resource and as a delivery
agent for certain services on behalf of the local municipalities. As an example, the
County has recently embarked on a pilot project to contract Information Technology
services for the Township of North Kawartha. Based on early reports, that initiative
appears to be working well. I would suggest that it is important though that any such
collaborative relationships be approached as opportunities for mutually-beneficial
partnership, and not perceived as the County as “big brother”, stepping in to take over.
It is also important to recognize that not all municipalities have the exact same goals
and interests, so what works well for one, may not work well for others.
I would like to work with the local county CAOs, and the City, on continuing collaborative
efforts and believe there is genuine broad support for doing so.
I believe there may also be opportunities for the county CAOs to work together
strategically. For example, recently consultations with municipalities were held
regarding the possibility of widening Highway 7. In that instance, the consultant met with
municipalities and the County individually. In situations such as that, it may well be
worthwhile for the municipalities to have opportunity to discuss whether there are
strategic positions they should be taking and/or lobbying for as a group, rather than
providing input individually.

Recommendation:

That the CAO work with the CAOs of the other municipalities within the County to
hold regular meetings to allow the group to: share information and best
practices; develop mutually beneficial opportunities for joint training, service
provision, provision of service by the County, and/or partnering on funding
applications; and, possibly through facilitated planning discussion, to identify
how the group can best work together strategically.

2.3 Relationships with Local First Nations

Through my first 100 days, I had the opportunity to meet and have a good discussion
with Chief Carr from the Hiawatha First Nation at her office. I was able to introduce
myself to Chief Williams of the Curve Lake First Nation at a Trent University lecture on
local First Nations’ treaties, and to meet many of her Council members at one of their
regular meetings in the Curve Lake community. I have also had the opportunity to meet
with senior staff from Curve Lake at their administration offices.
In all, members of Council and Staff at the County report that the relationship between
the County and the local First Nations communities has been a good and collaborative
one. Representatives of both the County and the First Nations acknowledge that the
relationship has been most close between each First Nation and the local municipality
25
that is geographically closest: in the case of Hiawatha – OSM; and in the case of Curve
Lake – Selwyn. For the most part, I would describe the past relationship between the
parties as friendly, but perhaps more casual than formal. There have not been regularly-
scheduled council-to-council or staff-to-staff meetings. If a municipality, or any of the
First Nations communities, has perceived an issue or an opportunity to work together, it
has been discussed, and acted upon when felt appropriate. Both Curve Lake and
Hiawatha are partners in Sustainable Peterborough and are the first two First Nations
Communities in Canada to participate in the FCM Partners for Climate Protection (PCP)
program. In addition, a permanent First Nations Aabnaabin – Michi Saagiig interpretive
camp has been established at Lang Pioneer Village Museum in strong partnership with
Hiawatha and Curve Lake.
Historically, the rights of First Nations vis a vis Canadian governments have been set
out in treaties. More information regarding treaty rights and history can be found at the
following link:
https://www.ontario.ca/page/treaties
Locally, the Williams Treaty and Treaty 20 (established in 1818) cover most of the
geographic area known as Peterborough County. There is not time in a summary report
such as this to cover off the detail of the treaties, but as outlined in the government of
Ontario website linked above, treaties generally are legally binding documents that set
out the rights, responsibilities and relationships of First Nations and the federal and
provincial governments. They cover elements such as:
 payments of goods and cash
 cession of First Nations’ title to certain lands
 creation of reserves
 protection of fishing, hunting and harvesting rights
 promises of schools, clothing and farming equipment and supplies
In recent years, there have been a number of developments as regards the relationship
between Canada, its constituent governments, and First Nations. The Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada (“TRCC”) was established in 2008 to document
the history and impacts of residential schools. The TRCC released its findings in 2015,
along with 94 “Calls to Action” to redress the legacy of residential schools and advance
the process of Canadian reconciliation. Notable for governments in Canada, are calls to
action # 43 and 44, which read:
43. We call upon federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments to
fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.
44. We call upon the Government of Canada to develop a national action
plan, strategies, and other concrete measures to achieve the goals of the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

26
A copy of the entire TRCC Calls to Action can be found at the following link:
http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf
In 2016, Private Members Bill C-262 - An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in
harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - was
introduced to Parliament. The Bill received second reading and was referred to
Committee in February 2018. If passed, the Bill calls upon the government of Canada to
ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”).
A copy of the Bill can be found here:
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-262/first-reading
Of note, among others, are the following articles of the UNDRIP:
Article 11
Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions
and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past,
present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and
historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and
performing arts and literature.

Article 18
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters
which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in
accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their
own indigenous decision-making institutions.

Article 19
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples
concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free,
prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or
administrative measures that may affect them.
In discussions with representatives of the local First Nations, they are well aware that
the initiatives outlined above are under consideration. There appears to be a strong
desire to continue to work collaboratively with municipalities, and also wish to work with
municipalities to change and build on existing relationships so that they, and
Peterborough County, are ‘ahead of the curve’ in terms of the changes and initiatives
outlined above.
In that regard, they have already identified a few areas where there is feeling that
further action and/or discussion would be of benefit, namely:

27
1) Participation on the County’s Official Plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
Currently, there is representation from each of the local municipalities on the
TAC, but no representation from First Nations. Staff had initially recommended
that the existing TAC hold special meetings with First Nations to focus on issues
of importance to them, rather than having them sit through a number of meetings,
dealing with issues that may or may not be of interest to them. Local First
Nations communities, and Curve Lake particularly, have respectfully indicated
that, as a local community/government, they wish to be represented and have
input on the TAC, rather than be seen as a special interest group; and they would
appreciate the opportunity to decide for themselves what issues they may or may
not be interested in. They are communities within Peterborough County, and do
have an interest in how and where the County develops, and as such including
them at the table would appear to be the right thing to do. As such, Staff will be
bringing a report forward to Council recommending that representatives of Curve
Lake and Hiawatha First Nations be invited to sit as members of the County’s
Official Plan TAC.

2) Concern has been expressed that there have been developments in past where
sufficient attention is not felt to have been paid to potential archeological impacts
of developments. Particular concern was raised regarding developments wherein
perhaps the initial development proposal did not present archeological concerns,
but then the scope of the development changes over time without revisiting the
issue of potential archeological impacts. As a result of this expressed concern,
the County’s Director of Planning will be communicating with Planning Staff the
need to be cognizant of potential archeological concerns where there has been a
change in the scope of a development.

3) Concern has been expressed that the County does not consult with local First
Nations on developments that fall beyond the 1km distance from First Nations
communities, which is set out in the regulations to the Planning Act. I understand
that a number of years ago, the County accepted a legal recommendation that
the County simply stick to consulting within the mandatory minimum 1 km
distance.

However, local First Nations advise that many other municipalities (ex. Simcoe
County; York Region; Durham Region) do consult with them on developments
well outside the 1 kilometre distance from their community. They note that Treaty
20 applies to most of Peterborough County, and that development proposals can
impact treaty fishing and hunting rights, and that there are significant
interconnected waterways and wetlands within the county that are important to
protecting their heritage and way of life. An example was provided of a
development that destroyed a wild rice bed, which is an important staple in the
culture.

First Nations stress that they do not wish to stop development, but wish to have
an opportunity to be consulted and provide input; and that the earlier the
consultation occurs, the less likelihood that their input may cause delays for
developers. They express hope that the County and the City will be cheerleaders
28
 with them in efforts to avoid any unnecessary destruction of lands, or
contamination of waters, etc.

In the interest of continued and improved partnership with local First Nations, it is
recommended that the County at least take steps to research the engagement
and consultation policies and efforts made by other municipalities with local First
Nations and, if and where appropriate, consider amending the County’s current
consultation protocol to include consultation on developments greater than one
kilometre from local First Nations communities.

My last comments on the County’s relationship and collaboration with local First
Nations is in regard to an ongoing First Nation-Municipal Economic Development
Initiative (CEDI).

CEDI Background (Copied in large part from a March 28, 2018 letter from FCM/Cando to
Warden Taylor)

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and Cando (Council for the
Advancement of Native Development Officers) jointly deliver the First Nation Municipal
Community Economic Development Initiative (CEDI). This national program aims to
improve joint economic prosperity of municipalities and adjacent First Nations by
building capacity for joint community economic development (CED) and land-use
planning and projects.
In early 2017, an application from the Township of Selwyn, Curve Lake First Nation,
Hiawatha First Nation and Peterborough and the Kawarthas Economic Development
(Sustainable Peterborough) was accepted from over 80 applications across the country
for participation in the program.
In the early consultation with the above applicants, the County of Peterborough was
identified as a potential partner that would contribute to and benefit from participation in
the process. After several working group meetings and a joint community workshop, the
CEDI team and Hiawatha First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, the Township of
Selwyn, and Peterborough and Kawarthas Economic Development have formally invited
the County of Peterborough to join the CEDI process as a partner.
Being a partner would include attending Working Group meetings (Iain Mudd, Deputy-
Warden Mary Smith and Councillor Sherry Senis have attended in past) and agreeing to
participate in future joint community workshops. It would also require passing a Council
Resolution committing to the program with the other partners, for the next 3 years.
While the commitment of elected officials and staff is required, there is no financial
commitment required to participate in CEDI.
The CEDI team would like to arrange a meeting with Council in the coming weeks, to
offer an opportunity to fully explain the CEDI program and its benefits and have a
chance to answer have any questions about the program. A similar presentation was
made to the Council and staff at Otonabee-South Monaghan on April 9th, who I
understand have agreed to become a formal partner in the process.
29
Based on my initial meetings with them, and upon my participation in an earlier CEDI
working group session, I believe there are mutual gaps in knowledge and understanding
between the County and local First Nations regarding each other and how, or why, we
operate the way we do. I believe the County’s participation in the CEDI program has
great potential to improve mutual understanding and appreciation between the County
and local First Nations regarding the history of the respective
organizations/communities; how each of them operates; their challenges; goals and
opportunities for collaboration. I recommend the County participate in the program.
Based on all of the above, I suggest County Council consider the recommendations
outlined below in order to build upon past successes and create new opportunities for
mutually beneficial collaboration with local First Nations communities.

Recommendations:

That County Council consider taking steps to establish ongoing, regular Council-
to-council dialogue with local First Nations communities, with a view to
improving mutual understanding of cultures and organizations and recognizing
First Nations communities as communities within and part of the County - and
that this step include, but may not be limited to:

o Asking a representative of the First Nation – Municipal Economic

Development Initiative (CEDI) to attend Council to provide a thorough
explanation of the CEDI process;

o The County passing a resolution committing to the CEDI process for

the next three years – a “commitment” being a commitment simply to
continue engaging with the other partners, to prioritize relationship-
building, and to explore mutually beneficial joint-initiatives. Further, this
includes:

 Designating two individuals from the County (one staff person

and one elected official) to act as community champions for joint
economic development planning;
 Committing to organize and participate in five to six 1.5-day joint
workshops tailored to our needs; ensuring there is
representation of elected officials, senior staff and economic
development staff from the County;
 Ensuring CEDI Champions meet monthly (by phone or in person)
 Participate in planning for the use of the financial resources
component of CEDI, including peer mentorship, study tour and
capacity-building grants
 Be responsible for ongoing community engagement and keeping
the community informed about CEDI (may include agenda items

30
 at meetings, reports in local media, community announcements,
etc.)

That the County research and consider incorporating a land acknowledgement

into its regular meetings;
That County Council consider directing Staff to invite representatives of local
First Nations to sit on the Official Plan Technical Advisory Committee; and
That Council direct staff to research the engagement and consultation policies of
other municipalities with local First Nations and, if felt appropriate based on such
research and further dialogue with local First Nations, consider amending the
County’s current consultation protocol to include consultation on developments
greater than one kilometre from local First Nations communities.

3.0 Improving Communication & Engagement

What I Heard

As mentioned earlier in this report, communication between the County and the local
municipalities came up in a number of the interviews with the local municipalities, with
some feeling that the County could be doing a better job of looping local municipalities
in regarding, for example, changes to policy that are being contemplated or
recommended, so that local municipalities don’t just find out about it after it is a “done
deal”. Some mentioned that the County had previously circulated a paper-based
newsletter that provided helpful information, and that they wouldn’t mind seeing again.
Council may have noted that some minor communication-related tweaks have been
made in recent months, for example changes to the County’s report template, including
headings that essentially force the report-writer to consider who should be consulted
during the preparation of a report and its recommendations, and who should
communicated with.
Some of both County Staff and elected officials indicated a feeling that communications
and engagement could be improved. Both also expressed the belief that many
taxpayers do not really know or fully understand who the county is, or what the county
does. It has been noted that the development of the County’s existing strategic plan (as
with many of the County’s plans) was entirely an in-house affair, without any
consultation or input directly from the citizens we serve.
The County currently makes use of social media (Facebook; Twitter; You Tube), but
could be using those platforms more extensively, as well as exploring the use of
additional social media platforms (ex. LinkedIn for job postings; Instagram).
Communications at the County has been fairly centralized within the Corporate Projects
& Services department. While some additional resources may eventually be required to
fully implement a more robust communication strategy, I would like to see the County

31
taking advantage of existing resources as much as possible, by decentralizing
communications to some extent and providing training and communications
authorizations more broadly across the organization

Moving Forward

Citizens currently have access to more information, and greater ability to communicate
with one another, than ever before in human history. Accompanying that access to
information and communication are increased expectations of not just being informed,
but also of having opportunity to provide input on decisions being made by their
governments. Excellent training and guidelines for improving the organization’s
effectiveness at citizen engagement are available from recognized organizations such
as the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), including courses on
planning for effective public participation and techniques for effective public
participation. We currently only have our Director, Corporate Projects & Services trained
in IAP2.
Improving communications and engagement with stakeholders and citizens is not only
about satisfying their needs, but is also about the County as an organization being able
to achieve its goals. For example, as noted earlier in this report, keeping up with the
County’s infrastructure development, repair and replacement is a huge challenge, and
one that will require the County seriously look at measures such as borrowing more,
and/or optimizing its ability to levy taxes. These are never easy decisions to make, nor
are they an easy sell publicly. I understand that at the 2017 Strategic Planning Session
of Council and staff, there was lengthy discussion of the County’s need to educate the
public about our infrastructure and fiscal challenges, to not only inform but to also
garner support for increased investment in our infrastructure and/or to discuss with our
ratepayers infrastructure priorities and/or service level reductions/impacts.
In a recent lecture on municipal finance at Trent University (appropriately titled: “You
Get What You Pay For: Funding Cities in the 21st Century”), Professor Enid Slack
discussed the concept of first needing to build public fiscal trust, before citizens will be
convinced that infrastructure funding measures such as increases in taxes, adding new
taxes, use of user fees, borrowing, etc. are acceptable. In terms of how a municipality
can go about building that public trust, professor Slack referenced a paper by
Professors Dina Grazer and Pamela Robinson, entitled “A Recipe for Fiscal Trust”. In
that paper, five (5) ingredients for public trust are outlined, and they include:
1) Good information: Providing the public with good information – transparency;
2) Good Communications: Tell the story. Identify for people the services you
provide, in a way they can understand;
3) Real Engagement: As an ongoing practice, not a one-off exercise. Ex,
participatory budgeting
4) Building Credibility: Have in place transparent and measurable tracking systems.
Show a track record of delivering projects on time, and on-budget
5) Earmarking Funds: Link revenues to expenditures. Show people where the
money is going.

32
In amongst the five (5) ingredients outlined above, I believe lay the seeds for future
change at the County. As CAO, I would like to see the County move toward
implementing changes and/or initiatives as follows:

Recommendation:

That the County develop a new corporate Communication Plan and policies that
consider:

o Improving communications with our ratepayers; our local

partners and municipalities, and our Staff;

o Establishing and implementing an open data policy

o Making even better use of social media, the expansion of which
could be supported through various departmental inputs at
County;

o Taking advantage of existing resources as much as possible, by

decentralizing communications to some extent and providing
training and communications authorizations more broadly across
the organization;

o Publishing annual work plans that demonstrate how the budget

we pass each year, and the work staff do each year, are linked to
the County’s strategic goals;

o Publishing an annual report/report card that demonstrates the

extent to which we have, or have not, achieved the goals set out
for the year;

Recommendation:
That the County consider moving toward the development of a Citizen
Engagement Plan, beginning with authorizing the training of County Staff and
Council on planning and techniques for effective public participation, as a
precursor to development of the Engagement Plan.

4.0 Operationalizing and Reporting on Strategic Objectives

This section is very strongly linked to, and builds upon the previous section on
improving communications and engagement, and the recommendations made therein
are equally as applicable.

33
In working with Councils to develop a strategic plan, I often like to ask a question such
as: “What would you like people to be saying about the County of Peterborough 5 years
from now?” A strategic plan outlines the organization’s vision for the County, both as an
organization and as a community, and what they hope the County will be - for their
citizens, for their staff, and to those visiting the community or viewing it from afar (i.e.:
potential new residents). In addition to outlining a vision, a strategic plan outlines
strategic priorities and objectives the organization believes need to be achieved in order
to realize the vision. It also often identifies values and/or principles the organization
wishes to embrace along the way.
The County’s existing strategic plan – a plan for the period from 2015 – 2019 - was
developed in early 2015. As referenced earlier in this report, the plan was developed in-
house, which is to say that it did not involve engaging the public for input into the plan.
The current strategic plan contains objectives whose timelines are categorized as being
either “short-term”; “medium–term” or “ongoing/long-term” in nature. As I look at the
current strategic plan, and at the ongoing work of the organization, I see that staff are
indeed moving forward with a number of the priorities and objectives laid out in the plan.
Looking at those identified as short and medium-term objectives, I do see some that
appear to have been completed or are well underway (ex. Institute an annual review
process for the 10-year Capital Plan; Grow Lang Pioneer Village Museum and the
Agricultural Hall of Fame Barn; Work collaboratively on Regional projects i.e. EOWC;
Sustainable Ptbo.), and some others that have not.
In interviews with members of Council, I received feedback that the current plan is
viewed by some as being “too general”, with no “meat” to it. Certainly there are some
objectives identified in the current plan that are broad or more generic in nature (ex.
Develop and implement progressive employment and compensation policies, programs
and practices). However, I feel the greater shortcomings with the current strategic plan
are that: a) it does not appear to have been integrated into the formal development of
annual work plans by departments, against which annual performance can be
measured; and b) when work to achieve the objectives of the strategic plan is being
done, few are aware of it; or, if they are aware of it, they may not be aware of, or
remember, how it is linked to the strategic plan. In other words, in many cases the work
of the strategic plan is being accomplished, but it is not being tracked or reported on in a
way that allows Council and the Public to be aware of, or appreciate it.
I have been working with Directors to have each of them develop an annual work plan
for 2018 that is linked to the objectives of the strategic plan. An example of the 2018
work plan for Corporate Projects & Services is attached to this report as Appendix “E”.
In addition to linking annual work plans to the goals and objectives outlined in the
strategic plan, it will be important for the senior management team to develop tools to
track ongoing performance against the annual objectives.
It will also be important to begin reporting annually to Council and the Public regarding
the extent to which the County has made progress against its goals in any given year.
This doesn’t need to be a complex or information-heavy report, and is probably best that
it not be, or most people will never read it. But it would provide information to show what

34
the County’s vision and goals are and how we’re doing. Attached to this report as
Appendix “F” is an example developed by the Director of Corporate Projects & Services
of what this type or reporting can look like.
One final point on strategic planning - and this it tied to the notion of improving citizen
engagement - I would recommend that Council seriously consider engaging the citizens
of the County in the development of the County’s next strategic plan. They are our
residents and the people we serve. Engaging them in the development of the
community vision will help ensure that vision meets their needs and expectations, and
should assist in getting community buy-in for actions subsequently taken toward
achieving the plan.

Recommendation:

That future County Strategic Plan development exercises include engaging and
obtaining feedback from residents of the community as part of the plan’s
development.

5.0 Organizing the County for Future Success

5.1 The Senior Management Team

The County’s senior management team is a talented, valuable and high-functioning

group. As in any organization, there have been past issues or disagreement, but the
group appears to be attempting to work past them. They have been used to a very
strong and supportive presence in the CAO, which is generally a good thing, but also
may have led some members of the team to, at times, defer their own opinions.
Members of the team need to be able to voice opinions and discuss, even disagree, in a
constructive manner, and to know how to reach consensus out of those disagreements.
A number of members of the senior group expressed the desire for the senior
management team to work more collaboratively together in addressing organizational
issues and organizational development. The staff survey revealed a fairly solid thread of
perception that departments often operate “in silos”, not collaboratively.
I feel the group may benefit from having the importance and nature of their roles as
individuals, and as a group, more formally defined, in order to impress upon them, and
any future members of the team (and CAOs), what their roles are, and how important it
is to the organization.

Recommendation:

That the senior management team be engaged in a process of facilitated

discussions surrounding:
1) Formalizing, defining and recognizing their roles, and the role of the
senior management team as a group, within the County organization;

35
 2) Establishing agreed-upon expectations and norms of behaviour
among members of the senior management team; reaching
consensus; collaborative goal-setting and tracking; and
3) Team-building.

5.2 Council Decisions - Governance & Engagement

Currently, most matters come straight to a Council meeting for decision since, in past,
the Standing Committee structure was eliminated. I have observed over the first 100
days that this has created some issues, namely:
1) whether there has been sufficient lead time and notice to the public that a
recommendation will be considered, and a corresponding opportunity(s) for
them to understand the recommendation and register as a delegation to
speak to the issue; and

2) Council not having the opportunity for “sober second thought” on proposed
recommendations, informed by views from the public.

Recommendation:

That the County explore re-establishing a Standing Committee structure to

address the issues such as:
1) whether there has been sufficient lead time and notice to the public that a
recommendation will be considered, and a corresponding opportunity(s)
for them to understand the recommendation and register as a delegation to
speak to the issue; and

2) Council not having the opportunity for “sober second thought” on

proposed recommendations, informed by views from the public.

36
5.3 Service Delivery Review and Organizational Review

By this point it will be obvious that this report contains a number of recommendations,
any number of which I believe would, if successfully implemented, build upon the
previous success of the County. It should hopefully also be clear that implementing
these recommendations, and realizing their benefits, will take time. Some will be quicker
than others. Some will take years to truly result in recognizable improvement. All will
require time and effort being expended by Staff.
Recently, there has been some suggestion from the Council floor that the County may
benefit from conducting service delivery and organizational reviews. Based upon
comments made by individual members of Council during interviews, and upon
comments made during meetings of Council, it is my perception, at least, that the
driving force behind the desire to conduct such reviews is frustration with the County’s
financial position vis a vis its limited ability to keep up with infrastructure needs and
demands. Some Councillors appear to feel that the County could or should be delivering
services differently, and that would lead to freeing-up resources for infrastructure
spending. One or two others have also questioned whether the “span of control” in the
County’s organizational chart is too horizontal and needs to be flattened (i.e.: too high a
ration of managers/supervisors to staff). But these have only been my impression,
based on individual comments. I personally feel I would benefit from some better
understanding of why some members of Council support the notion of conducting
theses reviews, and what the perceived benefit(s) of such reviews at this time would be.
An organizational review for the County of Peterborough was conducted in 2013 by the
firm of Gazda & Houlne. I note that a number of the review’s recommendations appear
not to have been implemented, though there does not seem to be great clarity
surrounding why not. I note also that review addressed the issue of the ratio of
managers to staff at the County and found that it was comparatively reasonable, yet that
issue continues to be raised. A better understanding of these issues might be advisable
prior to heading down the road of another review so that similar results (i.e.:
recommendations not implemented; findings not accepted/followed) are not
experienced again.
Some of the County’s current senior staff were not present at the time of the previous
review (ex. CAO; Treasurer), and though those who were here were engaged in the
process through providing information and feedback to the consultant through
interviews, they were not involved in the process of reviewing the information and
developing recommendations. Before engaging in another organizational review, it may
be prudent to first task your current senior management team with engaging in a
thorough analysis of the final report of the last organizational review, with a view to
recommending to Council whether there are any unimplemented recommendations
therein that should be further explored or implemented.
If cost-savings, or finding dollars for infrastructure is a driving factor behind the desire
for the reviews, Council may wish to consider the following.

37
The County’s entire annual budget expenditures break down as follows:

 44% of the budget is related to services shared with the City & other agencies
o Social Services
o Housing
o Childcare
o EMS
o Landfill
o Economic Development
o Fairhaven
o Peterborough Public Health

 39% of the budget is related to County Public Works

o Operations
o Engineering & Design
o Waste

 17% is the all the rest of County Services (ex. Planning; Lang Pioneer Museum;
and all the services that support the work being done by others: Finance; Clerk;
IT; GIS; HR; Corporate Projects & Services; CAO).
Based on these breakdowns showing that they represent the vast bulk of the County’s
spending (83%), it would appear that the County’s best “bang for its buck” in terms of
seeking efficiencies from a service delivery and organization review would be to:
a) Focus on a PW service delivery and org. review; and
b) Discuss with the City the notion of partnering on a service delivery and org.
review related to all shared services. In light of my observations and
recommendations earlier in this report, the County and City may also want to
discuss such a review including a governance review for shared services.
A County-focused service delivery review and organizational review would likely cost
the County in excess of $100,000 and take approximately 6 – 7 months to complete. I
understand the County of Frontenac had KPMG complete a comprehensive review of
services and organization in 2013, with costs in the range of $150,000 and a timeframe
of approximately 7 months. Done properly, it will require significant input and time from
staff across the organization. Typically, such an undertaking would be one of the major,
if not THE major project for an organization such as ours in any given year. As it stands

38
now, budgets for 2018 have only fairly recently been passed, and Staff have their work
for 2018 planned and underway accordingly. And with a municipal election scheduled
only six (6) months from now, it is not recommended that such a review be commenced
in 2018. In terms of timing, if Council did want to move ahead with any type of review, I
would recommend including funding for the review in the 2019 budget for approval by
the new Council, with a view to issuing an RFP for the review in March/April of 2019,
targeting mid-2019 for commencement of the review.
As with development of a strategic plan, and though it makes the process more
expensive and time-consuming, organizational reviews and service delivery reviews
(and the development of recommendations therein), should ideally include participation
and feedback from: a) the staff who deliver the services (this will help ensure greater
buy-in for implementation); and b) the residents who are served by the departments
being reviewed (this will provide the County with opportunity to communicate, and help
residents better understand, the challenges facing the County).

Recommendations:

That the County senior management team be tasked with engaging in a thorough
analysis of the final report of the 2013 County organizational review, with a view
to recommending to Council whether there are any unimplemented
recommendations therein that should be further explored or implemented;
That if Council wishes to move ahead with service delivery and organizational
reviews, that a timeframe be considered that would see the reviews being
budgeted for in 2019, with a mid-2019 commencement date;
That Council consider whether the best value, and likely greatest impact of any
service delivery and organizational reviews may be found in focusing on reviews
of the County’s Public Works functions, and the Shared Services with the City of
Peterborough; and that the Council direct staff to commence discussion with the
City in that regard, as well as in regard to a possible governance review for
shared services; and
That any service delivery and/or organization review include participation and
feedback from both County staff delivering the services, and County residents
who receive the services.

39
 Appendix “A”
Appendix “A” – to First 100 Day Plan – by Troy Speck

40
 Appendix “B”
Troy Speck - First 100 Days
Present - Start Date Week 1-3 Weeks 4-7 Weeks 8-10 Weeks 11-13 Weeks 14-16 Weeks 17-19 Week 20

Pre-Start Activities:
Document Review
Ongoing
Speak with CAO & Warden
Complete
Communications/Discussions

Develop and Send Early Intro Video

Sent Oct. 3

Listening Tour - Internal: Staff & Volunteer

Survey:
Send survey out
Sent Oct 10
Compile & Review Responses
Closed Nov 1
Summarize Responses complete
Discuss with SMT & ID any quick win Not Yet
opportunities Complete
County Site Visits:
Courthouse Oct. 4
PCCP - Armour Rd Oct. 5
Public Works - Armour Rd Oct. 23
Public Works - Douro Depot Nov. 23
Lang Sept. 28

Listening Tour - Internal: Individual

Interviews:
SMT Members
Trena DeBruijn - Director of Finance/Treasurer Sept. 25
Sally Saunders - Clerk Sept. 29
Bryan Weir - Director of Planning Sept. 26
Patti Kraft - Director of Human Resources Sept. 29
Sheridan Graham - Director, Corporate Projects
& Services Sept. 26
Randy Mellow - Chief of Paramedics Oct. 5 Ride Along Sheduled for May 23
Chris Bradley - Director of Public Works Oct. 23
Karla Sampson - Executive Assistant to the CAO
& Warden Oct. 2
Union Leadership
CUPE 1306 - Ann Hamilton - President Nov. 8
CUPE 4911 - Jason Frazer - President Dec. 21
Sampling Front Line Staff Not Yet
Complete

Listening Tour - External:

Meetings/Interviews
Councillors/CAO's & Sr. Staff at Townships
Asphodel-Norwood Nov. 7
Cavan Monaghan Nov. 9
Douro Dummer Oct. 16
Havelock-Belmont-Methuen Oct. 12
North Kawartha Nov. 9
Otonabee-South Monaghan Nov. 7
Selwyn Oct. 11
Trent Lakes Oct. 11
City of Peterborough CAO
Sept. 27 Nov. 30
Joint Services Steering Committee (JSSC) Oct. 17 Draft
Review / Oct.
26 Meeting
City of Peterborough - Social Services Oct. 31
Curve Lake Attended CL
Council Nov.
20
Hiawatha
Nov. 6
EOWC CAO's

Oct. 19/20 Nov.23/24 Dec 7/8 Jan 10-12 Jan 21-23

Peterborough Public Health - Dr. Rosana Nov. 14
Salvaterra
Trent University - Julie Davis - VP of External Mar. 1
Relations
Fleming College - Dr. Tony Tilly - President Jan. 18

Sr. Gov't Ministeries & Departments:

Jeff Leal - MPP and Minister of Agriculter and
Rural Affairs, as well as Small Business Nov. 3
Maryam Monsef - MP and Minister of Status of Not Yet
Women Complete

Other stakeholders & Partners:

Peterborough and the Kawartha's Economic Oct 11 -

Development (PKED) Board Nov. 17 Jan. 25
orientatio Nov. 30 Feb 8
Peterborough Public Health (PPH) - Dr. Rosana
Salvaterra Nov. 14
Eastern Ontario Regional Network (EORN) -
David Fell, CEO Nov. 2 Dec. 11 Jan. 4
Data Review, Analysis & Follow-up
Questions:
Summary Report:
Preparation
Presentation

41
 Appendix “C”
Troy Speck – First 100 Days

Survey:

Develop and Send Early Intro Video Sent Oct. 3

Sent survey out Oct 10
Compile & Review Responses Survey Closed Nov. 1
Summarize Responses Complete
County Site Visits:

Courthouse Oct. 4
PCCP - Armour Rd. Oct. 5
Public Works - Armour Rd. Oct. 23
Public Works - Douro Depot Nov. 23
Lang Sept. 28
Listening Tour - Internal: Individual Meetings

SMT Members:

Trena DeBruijn - Director of Finance/Treasurer Sept. 25

Sally Saunders – Clerk Sept. 29

Bryan Weir - Director of Planning Sept. 26
Patti Kraft - Director of Human Resources Sept. 29
Sheridan Graham - Director, Corporate Projects & Sept. 26
Services
Randy Mellow - Chief of Paramedics Oct. 5
Ride along - May 23
Chris Bradley - Director of Public Works Oct. 23

Karla Sampson - Executive Assistant to the CAO & Oct. 2

Warden
Union Leadership:
CUPE 1306 - Ann Hamilton – President Nov. 8

CUPE 4911 - Jason Frazer – President Dec. 21

Listening Tour - External: Meetings & Interviews

Councillors/CAO's & Sr. Staff at Townships

Asphodel-Norwood Nov. 7
Cavan Monaghan Nov. 9
Douro Dummer Oct. 16

42
Havelock-Belmont-Methuen Oct. 12

North Kawartha Nov. 9

Otonabee-South Monaghan Nov. 7
Selwyn Oct. 11
Trent Lakes Oct. 11
Other Stakeholders
City of Peterborough CAO Sept. 27 & Nov. 30
Joint Services Steering Committee (JSSC) Oct. 17 Draft Review ;
Oct. 26 Meeting
City of Peterborough - Social Services Oct. 31

Peterborough Public Health – Dr. Rosana Salvaterra Nov. 14

Curve Lake – First Nation Nov. 20
Hiawatha – First Nation Nov. 6
EOWC CAO's Oct. 19/20 ; Nov.23/24
;
Dec 7/8 ; Jan
10-12 ;
Jan 21-23
Trent University – Julie Davis – VP of External Relations March 1
Fleming College – Dr. Tony Tilly – President Jan. 18
Sr. Gov't Ministries & Departments:

Jeff Leal - MPP and Minister of Agriculture and Rural Nov. 3

Affairs, as well as Small Business
Other stakeholders & Partners:

Peterborough and the Kawartha's Economic Oct 11 ; Nov. 17 ; Nov.

Development (PKED) - 30, Jan. 25 ; Feb 8
Peterborough Public Health (PPH) - Dr. Rosana Nov. 14
Salvaterra
Eastern Ontario Regional Network (EORN) - David Fell, Nov. 2 ; Dec. 11 ; Jan.
CEO 4

43
Appendix “D” - Summary of Recommendations

1.0 Key Service Challenges

1.1 Understanding, Communication and Managing the County’s

Relationship with its Service Partners

Recommendation 1.1 (a):

That, in anticipation of new Council orientation following the 2018 municipal

election, and also in anticipation of future negotiations within the next 1 – 2 years
to renew arrangements such as the CMSM agreement with the City of
Peterborough, and the agreement with PKED, County staff arrange for the
preparation of a report and presentation to Council regarding all of the services
being delivered by external organizations and agencies with County funding.
Such report to include:

o A brief outline of the history behind existing arrangements and

agreements;
o An overview of the terms of any existing agreements and/or enacting
or governing legislation;
o Analysis of the cost/benefit of the existing arrangement to the
County and its residents; and
o Identify any future changes recommended for discussion and/or
consideration.

Recommendation 1.1 (b):

In renegotiating shared services agreements between the County and City,

discussion should be held to clarify: 1) what/when the respective Councils have
opportunities for input into, and approval of: a) the services and service levels
being delivered (and/or proposed changes to them); and b) the budgets; 2)
identifying and agreeing upon key performance indicators (KPIs) of expected
service delivery outcomes; and 3) clarifying the expectations in terms of regular
reporting back to the respective councils, with opportunity to ask questions and
seek clarification about performance of the service.

44
Recommendation 1.1 (c):

That specified senior staff at the County have designated as part of their
operating duties, to be the County staff liaison with each of those services being
provided on the County’s behalf by external organizations or agencies, and to
have the responsibility of monitoring the outcomes being delivered by, and
ensuring adequate reporting to Council on those services.

Alternately,

That discussions be held with the service-providing agencies (ie: City; PKED;
Fairhaven) about having their senior staff attend semi-regularly at County senior
management team meetings to share information and provide reports and
updates.

1.2 Addressing Infrastructure Needs

Recommendation 1.2 (a)

That County council consider directing staff to begin a review of municipal

taxation levels within the County, as compared to other similar municipalities, for
the purpose of determining whether current County taxation levels are
reasonable in all the circumstances;

Recommendation 1.2 (b)

That the County continue to move forward with development of a full asset
management plan as aggressively as possible; and

Recommendation 1.2 (c)

That the County research infrastructure-supporting debenturing plans put in

place by other municipalities such as City of Kawartha Lakes, and retain
expert assistance in developing the County’s own strategy to incorporate
borrowing as one component of its infrastructure renewal program.

45
1.3 Increasing Demand for Emergency Medical Services

Recommendation 1.3 (a)

That the County and City Councils make efforts to ensure the hospital offload
delay issue is at the forefront of AMO’s policy agenda, with a view to having the
Ministry of Health active in setting standards of acceptability and monitoring the
issue of offload delays; and that the Ministry is also working with hospitals such
as PRHC to ensure they have the necessary resources to eliminate unacceptable
offload delays.

Recommendation 1.3 (b)

That the County and City engage in re-exploring the notion of developing a
Community Paramedicine Program as a possible mitigation strategy for reducing
call volumes and correlated costs;

Recommendation 1.3 (c)

That, in an effort to reduce the volume of non-emergency calls for service, the
County seek to partner with other local health care organizations, such as PHRC,
Peterborough Public Health and local Family Health Teams to develop and
implement a program to educate and communicate with the Public regarding
when to call 911, as opposed to taking other available actions.

Recommendation 1.3 (d)

That the County continue to work with PHRC and the Province to address the
issue of patient off-load delays at the hospital.

46
1.4 The Changing Land Use Planning Landscape

Recommendation 1.4 (a)

That County Council continue to be aware of the challenges posed by changes to

provincial planning legislation and policy, and continue efforts with provincial
officials to encourage them to adopt the recommendations made by Council.

1.5 Updating the County’s Financial and Administrative Policies, Processes

and Tools

Recommendation 1.5 (a)

That the County consider moving toward multi-year (3 yr.) budgeting to ensure
that budgets provide Council, Staff and the Public with a broader picture of the
organization’s activities and challenges beyond just one year.

Recommendation 1.5 (b)

That the County’s budget process be reviewed with a view to making changes in
timing and process, for example: Targeting budget approvals by late in the year
before, or January of the budget year; and providing members of Council with a
copy of the draft budget with sufficient time in advance of first budget meeting to
review and ask questions of Staff.

Recommendation 1.5 (c)

That the County explore moving toward bringing the Purchasing and Risk
Management functions together within one functional area, under the oversight of
a Purchasing and Risk Manager.

47
Recommendation 1.5 (d)

That Staff bring a report back to Council by the end of 2018 recommending which
financial and administrative policies are most in need of review and updating, and
outlining a 3-year plan for completing those reviews and updates.

1.6 Retention and Recruitment

Recommendation 1.6 (a):

That the County continue with its succession and talent management planning
efforts, but do so in a way that is more collaboratively coordinated, reported to,
and tracked by the senior management team. This would include some pooling of
corporate training and development budgets in order to establish a centralized
budget for succession training & development.

Recommendation 1.6 (b)

That as part of any future surveying regarding employee satisfaction, the issue of
opportunities for advancement be further explored.

Recommendation 1.6 (c)

That the County review its comparator group(s) to ensure they adequately
represent true comparators for the County municipally and locally; and

That the County continue to externally validate the County’s compensation

program once per term of Council, and take steps to ensure that County
compensation in fact meets the percentile level established by Council.

Recommendation 1.6 (d)

That the County take steps toward developing a Workplace Culture Plan,
beginning with the implementation of a cross-departmental committee of
employees who will be tasked with assisting in the development of, and
communication regarding, an employee culture/satisfaction survey, as well as
with developing action plans to improve workplace culture based on the survey
results.

48
2.0 Building on Successes In Collaboration

2.1 Collaboration with the City of Peterborough and Other Service-

Providing Organizations
See Recommendations 1.1 (a), (b) and (c), and 1.3 (a), above. Also see
Recommendation 5.3 (c), below.

2.2 Relationships with the Local Municipalities Represented at the

County

Recommendation 2.2 (a)

That the CAO work with the CAOs of the other municipalities within the County to
hold regular meetings to allow the group to: share information and best
practices; develop mutually beneficial opportunities for joint training, service
provision, provision of service by the County, and/or partnering on funding
applications; and, possibly through facilitated planning discussion, to identify
how the group can best work together strategically.

2.3 Relationships with Local First Nations

Recommendation 2.3 (a)

That County Council consider taking steps to establish ongoing, regular Council-
to-council dialogue with local First Nations communities, with a view to
improving mutual understanding of cultures and organizations and recognizing
First Nations communities as communities within and part of the County - and
that this step include, but may not be limited to:

o Asking a representative of the First Nation – Municipal Economic Development

Initiative (CEDI) to attend Council to provide a thorough explanation of the
CEDI process;

o The County passing a resolution committing to the CEDI process for the next
three years – a “commitment” being a commitment simply to continue

49
 engaging with the other partners, to prioritize relationship-building, and to
explore mutually beneficial joint-initiatives. Further, this includes:

 Designating two individuals from the County (one staff person and one
elected official) to act as community champions for joint economic
development planning;
 Committing to organize and participate in five to six 1.5-day joint
workshops tailored to our needs; ensuring there is representation of
elected officials, senior staff and economic development staff from the
County;
 Ensuring CEDI Champions meet monthly (by phone or in person)
 Participate in planning for the use of the financial resources component
of CEDI, including peer mentorship, study tour and capacity-building
grants
 Be responsible for ongoing community engagement and keeping the
community informed about CEDI (may include agenda items at
meetings, reports in local media, community announcements, etc.).

Recommendation 2.3 (b)

That the County research and consider incorporating a land acknowledgement

into its regular meetings.

Recommendation 2.3 (c)

That County Council consider directing Staff to invite representatives of local

First Nations to sit on the Official Plan Technical Advisory Committee

Recommendation 2.3 (d)

And that Council direct staff to research the engagement and consultation
policies of other municipalities with local First Nations and, if felt appropriate
based on such research and further dialogue with local First Nations, consider
amending the County’s current consultation protocol to include consultation on
developments greater than one kilometre from local First Nations communities.

50
3.0 Improving Communication & Engagement
Recommendation 3.0 (a)

That the County develop a new corporate Communication Plan and policies that
consider:

o Improving communications with our ratepayers; our local

partners and municipalities, and our Staff;

o Establishing and implementing an open data policy

o Making even better use of social media, the expansion of which

could be supported through various departmental inputs at
County;

o Taking advantage of existing resources as much as possible, by

decentralizing communications to some extent and providing
training and communications authorizations more broadly across
the organization;

o Publishing annual work plans that demonstrate how the budget

we pass each year, and the work staff do each year, are linked to
the County’s strategic goals;

o Publishing an annual report/report card that demonstrates the

extent to which we have, or have not, achieved the goals set out
for the year;

Recommendation 3.0 (b):

That the County consider moving toward the development of a Citizen

Engagement Plan, beginning with authorizing the training of County Staff and
Council on planning and techniques for effective public participation, as a
precursor to development of the Engagement Plan.

51
4.0 Operationalizing and Reporting on Strategic Objectives
See recommendations 3.0 (a) and (b), above.

Recommendation 4.0 (a)

That future County Strategic Plan development exercises include engaging and
obtaining feedback from residents of the community as part of the plan’s
development.

5.0 Organizing the County for Future Success

5.1 The Senior Management Team

Recommendation 5.1 (a):

That the senior management team be engaged in a process of facilitated

discussions surrounding:

1) Formalizing, defining and recognizing their roles, and the role of the
senior management team as a group, within the County organization;

2) Establishing agreed-upon expectations and norms of behaviour

among members of the senior management team; reaching
consensus; collaborative goal-setting and tracking; and

3) team-building.

5.2 Council Decisions - Governance & Engagement

Recommendation 5.2 (a):

That the County explore re-establishing a Standing Committee structure to

address the issues such as:

a) whether there has been sufficient lead time and notice to the public that a
recommendation will be considered, and a corresponding opportunity(s)

52
 for them to understand the recommendation and register as a delegation to
speak to the issue; and

b) Council not having the opportunity for “sober second thought” on

proposed recommendations, informed by views from the public.

5.3 Service Delivery Review and Organizational Review

Recommendation 5.3 (a):

That the County senior management team be tasked with engaging in a thorough
analysis of the final report of the 2013 County organizational review, with a view
to recommending to Council whether there are any unimplemented
recommendations therein that should be further explored or implemented;

Recommendation 5.3 (b):

That if Council wishes to move ahead with service delivery and organizational
reviews, that a timeframe be considered that would see the reviews being
budgeted for in 2019, with a mid-2019 commencement date;

Recommendation 5.3 (c)

That Council consider whether the best value, and likely greatest impact of any
service delivery and organizational reviews may be found in focusing on reviews
of the County’s Public Works functions, and the Shared Services with the City of
Peterborough; and that the Council direct staff to commence discussion with the
City in that regard, as well as in regard to a possible governance review for
shared services.

Recommendation 5.3 (d)

That any service delivery and/or organization review include participation and
feedback from both County staff delivering the services, and County residents
who receive the services.

53
Appendix “E” CORPORATE PROJECTS & SERVICES – 2018 WORK PLAN
Goals Actions People Timelines Resources Evidence of Outcomes Alignment with Strategic Plan Status
Involved/Respo
nsible
Compliance with Review and identify actions Sheridan Throughout In budget - Corporate education Community Values & Cultural Identity
Green Energy for 2017 in County Energy David 2018 of energy consumption - Healthy & Sustainable Environment
Act and County Plan Heather minimization
Energy Plan – Have implemented energy Karen - Building Condition
Climate Change retrofit lines in budget – Assessments that
Action Plan working with PUC to identify Green Energy
Conservation implement upgrades actions/alternatives
Demand - Long term and
Management business planning
Plan (Jan. 1/19) around Green energy
- Building envelope
review
New Corporate Implement @PtboCounty Sheridan Early 2018 In budget - Update corporate Corporate Communications
Communications - New Comms Strategy Heather media - Identity/branding
Strategy - Website - New phone
- Emails system/extensions
- Other - New domain

Facilities Identified projects within David 2018 In budget - HVAC Upgrades Improved Essential Infrastructure
Upgrades Project facilities to upgrade Sheridan - Council Chambers
Facilities PM renovations
Software - Upgrades to facilities
items
- Implement PMP
software
Peterborough Fundraising Karen 2018 In budget - Construction and Community Values & Cultural Identity
County Next Steps Planning for Sheridan project management
Agricultural operations/partnerships of PCAHB
Heritage - Continued fund raising
Building

54
Appendix “E” CORPORATE PROJECTS & SERVICES – 2018 WORK PLAN
Goals Actions People Timelines Resources Evidence of Outcomes Alignment with Strategic Plan Status
Involved/Respo
nsible
Asset - New AMP for Sheridan 2018 In Budget - Completion of Improved Essential Infrastructure
Management facilities Trena updated AMP for Financial Sustainability
Plan - New committee David County
Devel. - FCM Funding
Wayfinding - New wayfinding Sheridan 2018 In Budget - RFP issued for sign Improved Essential Infrastructure
Signage Project signage program for Peter program Community Values & Cultural Identity
with PKT County Doug - Installation of new
signage Phase I
Public Works  RFI\RFP Sheridan Mid 2018 In Budget Patrol records and Improved Essential Infrastructure
Patrol and  Implementation Christo signage
Signage  Integration Benson maintenance no
Maintenance longer on paper.
IT Infrastructure Complete migration to new Christo Fall 2018 In Budget Retirement of Blade Improved Essential Infrastructure
Project – Phase 3 servers Benson System.
Deployment of  RFP Christo Spring 2018 Budget All staff to receive Improved Essential Infrastructure
new  Implementation Benson Request new smartphones.
Smartphones  Integration to Sheridan
Management
Application (Air
Watch or Intune)
Migration to Migrate on premise Exchange Christo Fall 2018 In Budget Key move to retire Improved Essential Infrastructure
hosted Exchange to Hosted O365 Benson Blade system.
All mail accounts off
premise.
Douro Garage Network Douro Garage Christo Spring 2018 Budget Garage networked Improved Essential Infrastructure
Connectivity Benson Request for signage
maintenance

55
Appendix “E” CORPORATE PROJECTS & SERVICES – 2018 WORK PLAN
Goals Actions People Timelines Resources Evidence of Outcomes Alignment with Strategic Plan Status
Involved/Respo
nsible
IT Projects - WorkTech Sheridan 2018 In Budget Review and project Enhance Corporate Communications
- Questica Christo implementation of Collaboration
- CRM Ben various corporate Improved Essential Infrastructure
- Electronic Document Brett technology projects
Mgmt. David
Implementation
- Others TBD
Building Security Implement Corporate Sheridan, David 2018 Budget Functional Security Improved Essential Infrastructure
Systems Security System Christo Request System
Financial Complete network Christo 2018 In Budget Completion of Improved Essential Infrastructure
Sustainability connectivity and associated Benson network and
and Fiscal technology connectivity
Responsibility requirement
Remote Implement Corporate Remote Sheridan 2018 In Budget Accommodate Improved Essential Infrastructure
Access\VPN Access to include policies and Christo remote access,
Implementation detailed access types HR working from home
and possibly flexible
work schedules
Increase Backup Accommodate data growth Sheridan 2018 Budget Improved backup Improved Essential Infrastructure
Utility and and backup utility and revisit Christo Request and DR
Disaster DR strategies Benson
Recovery
Facilities Master RFP and work with consultant Sheridan 2018 In Budget - Functional space Improved Essential Infrastructure
Plan Space on development of plan David planning Financial Sustainability and Fiscal Responsibility
Needs Heather - Financial analyses
Causeway - Comms strategy Sheridan 2018 In budget - Working with Enhance Corporate Communications
Communications - Partnership meetings Student Township, MNRF, Collaboration
Project Public Works OFAH, local
businesses

56
Appendix “E” CORPORATE PROJECTS & SERVICES – 2018 WORK PLAN
Goals Actions People Timelines Resources Evidence of Outcomes Alignment with Strategic Plan Status
Involved/Respo
nsible
Sustainable - Chair Position Sheridan 2018 In budget - Implementation of Community Values & Cultural Identity
Peterborough Steering Committee Heather Climate Change Action
- Climate Change Plan
Action Plan –
corporate and
Steering Committee
Archives Project Coordinate Committee Sheridan 2018 In budget - Community Values & Cultural Identity
Identify opportunities Karen
EOWC IT -policies and procedures in Sheridan 2018 In budget - Approved policies and Financial Sustainability and Fiscal Responsibility
Cyber Response place for Cyber Response Christopher procedures in place
Plan and Incident
Management
Corporate File - Access options, Sheridan 2018 In budget - Secure file storage Financial Sustainability and Fiscal Responsibility
Storage costing and policies David
Document with respect to file Heather
Mgmt Software storage Christopher
Facilities - Emergency Sheridan 2018 In budget - Emergency Response Improved Essential Infrastructure
Emergency management plan for David Plan for facilities
Management facilities – training Heather - Updates to Fire Safety
Plan Plan
Fire Safety Plans
Update
Heritage Jail Plaque for donors Karen 2018 In budget - Work with Law Society Community Values & Cultural Identity
Park Phase II Sheridan on signage/donor wall
NEW: Safe - Apply for funding Sheridan March 2018 Funded - Enhance Corporate Communications
Cycling - Create proposal Doug S by grant Collaboration
Communications partnership Selwyn Angie C Improved Essential Infrastructure
Plan - Funding and City (Selwyn)
- Execute funding Sue S (City)
- -

57
Appendix “E” CORPORATE PROJECTS & SERVICES – 2018 WORK PLAN
Goals People Timelines Resources Evidence of Outcomes Alignment with Strategic Plan
Involved/Respo
nsible
Committees: -
- LPVAC
- City OP
- City Well-Being Plan
- CCAP Corp
- CCAP Community
- Archives Committee
- Peter Robinson Committee
-
Operational - Legal/insurance Sheridan 2018 In budget - Closed/Completed Enhance Corporate Communications
Items - Adjust claims Heather claims Collaboration
- Agreement/contract David - Session with lawyer for Improved Essential Infrastructure
review Karen staff (training)
- WSIB/insurance
certificate
management
- Risk Management
- Facilities
Maintenance
- Event mgmt.
- Victoria Park mgmt.

Status
Not started
In Progress
Complete
Issue

58
Appendix “F” STRATEGIC PLANNING SUMMARY

59