HomeMy WebLinkAboutADMIN-8-98 w�- REPORT #3
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
JMd(1KKC[ X10ApJ00 XWXQWC( RNKK17f MKKX
REPORT
Meeting: COUNCIL File# /O�- 'y
Date: March 30, 1998 Res. #C PAZ
ADMIN-8-98 By-Law#
Report#: File #:
Subject:
A PROPOSED GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that COUNCIL adopt the following:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT Report ADMIN. 8 - 98 be received for information and
discussion;
2. THAT Council advise Mr. Alan Tonks, GTSB Review Moderator, that
the proposed legislation to establish a Greater Toronto Services
Board is not in the best interest of the ratepayers of the
Municipality of Clarington, for reasons outlined in this report;
3 . THAT the Province be requested NOT to pass such open ended
legislation that would grant autonomy to a Board that has such
wide jurisdiction without an opportunity for full public input.
4. THAT the Province publish, for public input, proposed regulations
and standards within which the GTSB would operate before passing
any legislation of this magnitude;
5. THAT Council again advise the Province, through the Review
Moderator, of the Municipality of Clarington's endorsement of the
Rural Mayors' recommendation requesting a three year grace period
from the time the legislation is passed to opt out of the GTA and
the Greater Toronto Services Board;
6. THAT Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer, and the
appropriate Staff, to commence the drafting of Terms of Reference
for the number of studies needed to be carried out to assist
Council in deciding how Clarington would function as a
municipality should it decide to request permission from the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to leave the GTA and the
GTSB as articulated in Report ADMIN. 41-97; and
7. THAT a copy of Report ADMIN. 8 - 98 be forwarded to the Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable Alan Leach, the
GTSB Review Moderator, Mr. Alan Tonks, all M.P.P. 's in the GTA,
the Townships of Scugog, Uxbridge and Brock, the Kawartha Pine
Ridge District School Board, the Peterborough Victoria
Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, and
the Clarington Board of Trade.
'APE' ®°.,.E„
ADMIN. 8 - 98 2
BACKGROUND:
1. 0 THE OFFICE OF THE GREATER TORONTO AREA
1.1 In 1988 the Government of Ontario established the Office of the Greater
Toronto Area in order to promote inter-regional cooperation on issues
such as macro-level planning and infrastructure coordination.
1.2 The Office established the Greater Toronto Coordinating Committee
(GTCC) , comprising of chief executive officers from the thirty-five
municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area, and chaired by the province.
2 .0 VISION 2021
2 .1 The Greater Toronto Coordinating Committee provided a forum for
discussion and cooperation on key inter-regional issues, and oversaw the
development of Vision 2021, a paper which identified a vision for the
GTA to the year 2021.
2 .2 The paper also addressed important issues such as population and
employment projections, urban form and quality of life, from a GTA-wide
perspective. Vision 2021 has since been incorporated in the Official
Plans of the five regions.
3.0 THE GOLDEN REPORT: THE GREATER TORONTO AREA TASK FORCE
3.1 In April of 1995 the Government of Ontario established the Greater
Toronto Area Task Force, under the chairmanship of Dr. Anne Golden, with
a mandate to develop an action plan to renew urban government in the
Greater Toronto Area.
3.2 In January of 1996, the Report of the Greater Toronto Area Task Force
(which was to be known as the Golden Report) , was issued. A copy of
this report is available in the office of the Chief Administrative
Officer for perusal.
3.3 The report produced a total of fifty-one recommendations, with the major
recommendations relating to the restructuring of governance in the GTA
by dissolving the five regional governments in favour of a Greater
Toronto Council (GTC) , and by creating fewer, but more powerful, local
municipalities.
3 .4 The report recommended a division of responsibilities between the GTC
and the local municipalities. The GTC would have responsibility for
services that were key to maintaining the GTA`s competitiveness, require
planning and co-ordination on a region-wide basis, or could not be
provided by local municipalities.
3 .5 The GTC responsibilities would include regional planning, environmental
quality, economic development, regional assets (eg. Metro Zoo) , service
districts such as police, transit, water and sewer, waste, expressways
and traffic computer, and the licensing of taxis, limousines, and tow
trucks.
3.6 The local municipal responsibilities would cover most roads, fire and
ambulance, parks and recreation, libraries, community services, public
health, local public transit, business retention, school boards,
municipal electric facilities, licensing and inspections, development
approvals, and environmental services.
3.7 In additional to the above, the report touched on the issue of municipal
boundary adjustment, suggesting that this issue be dealt with by the
i
ADMIN. 8 - 98 3
Greater Toronto Implementation Commission. Although there were no
specific recommendations dealing with the Clarington municipal boundary,
the report did suggest that consideration could be given to the easterly
portion of the municipality (former Clarke Twp. and Newcastle Village) ,
becoming part of Northumberland County.
3.8 As it was felt by Staff that the report's projected costs impact on the
Municipality of Clarington was somewhat suspect, it was recommended that
the municipal auditors, Deloitte and Touche, be contracted to review the
financial impact of the Golden Report and advise Council of their
findings.
3.9 The Review of the GTA Task Force Report by Deloitte and Touche was
received by Council on March 11, 1996 (a copy of the Deloitte and Touche
document is available in the Chief Administrative Officer's office for
perusal) , and was sent on to the Province as Clarington`s response to
the Golden Report. The Deloitte and Touche document could not support
the costs impacts suggested by the GTA Task Force Report.
4. 0 IMPLICATIONS OF CLARINGTON WITHDRAWING FROM THE GTA
4.1 On January 22, 1996, upon receipt of the Golden Report, the Council of
the Municipality of Clarington passed Resolution #GPA-43-96, which read
as follows; "That the Chief Administrative Officer review and report on
the financial implications of the Municipality of Clarington withdrawing
from the Greater Toronto Area in light of the recommendations contained
in the GTA Task Force Report, FORTHWITH. "
5.0 THE FOUR MAYORS REPORT: MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER
5.1 Most municipalities within the Greater Toronto Area presented response
papers to the Golden Report, giving their views on the numerous
recommendations made by the Golden committee. At the same time, the
committee known as the Mayors and Chairs, made up of the mayors and the
chairmen of the regions within the GTA, continued to meet on an ongoing
bases, attempting to find some common ground in responding to the Golden
Report.
5.2 However, once the Golden Report became public, four mayors from the GTA,
representing Toronto, North York, Mississauga, and Oshawa, produced
their own response paper to Golden, naming it, "Moving Forward
Together" . (A copy of this report is available in the Chief
Administrative Officer's office for perusal) .
5.3 In that report, the four mayors made a number of recommendations to the
Minister of Municipal Affairs, as follows:
5.4 " - Strong cities and a strong Province, with clear lines of
responsibility and authority; and the elimination of the regional level
of government across the GTA;
- A redefined GTA that distinguishes between urban and rural areas of
the economic region;
- An Intermunicipal Services Board, operating as a management board,
with no taxing authority and no directly elected members, to act as the
coordinating mechanism for a limited number of cross-boundary services
which would not rely on the pooling of assessment to finance them, but
rather would be bought on a consumption basis;
- A system of Local Option Assessment, which does not force
municipalities to choose market value assessment where it would be
ADMIN. 8 - 98 4
disadvantageous for their taxpayers, but that would ensure that tax
rates can be compared among municipalities;
- A realignment of provincial grants and services that would see the
Province paying 100% of welfare costs; and a rationalization of services
between the Province and municipalities;
- A mechanism to level the playing field between the 11416" and 11905"
municipalities through changes to the education grant formula;
- Coordination of transit services across the GTA to achieve "seamless"
service, fare integration, cross-boundary service, and coordination for
transit capital planning; but still allowing service to be delivered
locally, through intermunicipal partnerships or existing service
providers, such as the TTC;
- Police services to be more accountable to local councils and the
establishment of true community-based policing with a phase-in over
several years;
- Fire services to be delivered locally, combined with emergency
ambulance service to improve overall response time and achieve
administrative and operational efficiencies;
- A reduction of the number of special purpose bodies by amalgamation
with local municipal operations wherever possible. "
6 .0 THE CROMBIE REPORT: WHO DOES WHAT
6.1 In May of 1996, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing appointed
David Crombie to head up a panel to recommend a "complete overhaul of
who does what in the delivery and funding of many government services. "
6.2 The goal of the review was to ensure the very best service delivery by
reducing waste, duplication and the over-all cost of government at the
provincial and local government levels.
6.3 Although the review was province wide, the panel put forth some strong
recommendation specific to the Greater Toronto Area, following up on the
findings of the Golden Report.
7.0 GTA IMPERATIVES
7.1 The Crombie panel, in presenting its final paper, established the
following GTA Imperatives;
* the GTA is a single economic unit, fully integrated in terms of
employment opportunities, commuting patterns, transportation networks
and infrastructure.
* transit, economic development, regional planning, and environmental
services not only cross the current GTA but go beyond. These must be
addressed by some form of coordinating body.
* three levels of local government is not acceptable; if a GTA
coordinating body is established, then there must be some consolidation
of upper and lower tier municipalities in the four regions of Metro; and
some consolidation of the number of municipalities across the GTA.
* by consolidating municipalities within the GTA, it is possible to
ADMIN. 8 - 98 5
create municipal configurations based on the ability to afford and the
ability to deliver more services locally.
8.0 GTA GOVERNANCE VISION
8.1 The Crombie panel also produced the following "governance vision" ;
* The establishment of a Greater Toronto Area coordinating body to
provide:
* coordination of strategic area-wide services such as public transit
and environmental services;
* leadership on economic development strategies and sustainable regional
planning; and
* coordination of linked services such as police and emergency services.
8 .2 "A smaller number of large cities, with a strong urban core City of
Toronto that will be able to deliver local services effectively, and
provide avenues for democratic citizen participation and
accountability. "
8.3 "The Panel believes that what is needed today is a mechanism to knit
municipalities in the regions to the Toronto core in much the same way
that the 1953 governance arrangements did with downtown Toronto and
Metro suburbs. "
9.0 CROMBIE RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 The Crombie Panel produced the following recommendations:
9.2 "The Panel recommends that the Province implement a GTA governance
structure based on three fundamental and interrelated imperatives:
* creation of a Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) eliminating the
five upper municipalities;
• consolidations of member municipalities into strong cities;
• consolidations in Metro that create a strong urban core for the GTA.
The Panel agreed that a Greater Toronto Services Board is of
overwhelming importance. The Panel was unanimous in endorsing the
importance of a strong urban core, with views on strengthening the core
ranging from one city to four. All were agreed that consolidations_
should significantly enhance the political strength of the core city
within the Greater Toronto Area. "
9.3 "The Panel recommends the Greater Toronto Services Board should have the
following characteristics:
* represent a geographic area for the planned provision of services for
the next 25 years
• representation from municipalities based on population
• no direct taxing authority. Member municipalities and their residents
pay on the basis of user charges, assessment or population. For
different functions, different revenue sources will be utilized
* an important function of the GTSB would be to act as a forum for
ADMIN. 8 - 98 6
discussion, coordination and innovation
The GTSB should focus on ensuring the coordination of:
• regional roads and expressways
• waste management
• sewer and water - distribution and treatment
• public transit integration and coordination
• police board coordination
• regional and infrastructure planning
• social planning and coordination
• watershed management
It is the Panel's view that the GTSB should have a limited central
administration. Most functions would be provided by member
municipalities or private and partnership arrangements.
The GTSB external boundaries would be porous, allowing participation by
contiguous neighbouring municipalities through purchase of services,
infrastructure planning, economic promotion, and other activities as
appropriate.
In order to contain urban sprawl and provide for efficient use of
infrastructure, an urban zone should be identified within the GTA within
which all development will be concentrated for the next 25 years. Areas
beyond the urban zone would not be extended services or have large
development proposals approved, but would be represented on the Services
Board. "
9.4 "The Panel recommends that the Province mandate the following
implementation strategy:
• to establish the GTSB as a first priority;
• to develop proposals for municipal consolidations, with a report by
April 1997; and to implement the consolidations effective January 1,
1998.
* determine GTSB membership based on the population of the newly
consolidated cities, by April 1997. "
10.0 DEVELOPING THE FRAMEWORK FOR A GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD
10.1 On December 17, 1996, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
appointed Mr. Milt Farrow as his Special Advisor on the government's
proposed intention to establish a Greater Toronto Services Board.
10 .2 Mr. Farrows mandate was to undertake consultation and advise the
Minister on the following matters; The GTSB`s authority, or powers, how
it should be governed, what type of services it should concern itself
with, and what relationship it should have with municipalities, the
public, and the province.
10.3 During the early months of 1997, Mr. Farrow heard a number of
representations regarding the proposed GTSB, including written
submissions from the Region of Durham and the Municipality of
Clarington.
10.4 On April 7, 1997, Council approved ADMIN-12-97, entitled GREATER TORONTO
SERVICES BOARD: POSITION PAPER OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON,
(Attach. A) .
ADMIN. 8 - 98 7
10.5 This report was in response to a document released by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs entitled "Developing the Framework for a Greater
Toronto Services Board: A Discussion Paper", addressing the terms of
reference for the appointment of Mr. Milt Farrow by the Ministry, prior
to the establishment of a Greater Toronto Services Board.
10.6 The Clarington position paper recommended the following:
* any changes to governance and service delivery by municipal government
cannot be built on principles of efficiency but must appropriately
balance the principles of equity and accountability.
* support of the retention of the Regional level of government as the
primary service delivery vehicle for the major infrastructure
requirements of the Greater Toronto Area.
* the GTSB should generally be limited to roles of strategic planning,
co-ordination and dispute resolution.
* the GTSB cannot, in form or function, be perceived as another level of
government.
* one of the few areas of direct service delivery appropriate for the
GTSB is to assume the downloaded GO Transit system and the municipal
role for economic development in the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance.
* there is an important role for the GTSB in planning and coordinating
the overall transit services in the GTA with the goal of developing an
integrated "seamless" transit system; four regional transit systems and
the TTC should replace the many local transit systems which currently
exist.
* there is no role for the GTSB in the management or delivery of
services such as arterial roads, water and sewer systems, and waste
management.
* membership on the GTSB should be based on equal representation from
each Region and Metro Toronto Area. Representatives should include the
Regional Chairs and representatives of the local level of government in
each Region and the Metro Toronto Area. Representation should be chosen
by indirect election from existing municipal councils.
* the GTSB should have no authority to tax directly. Administrative
costs should be shared on the same basis as membership from each region.
Capital and operating cost sharing for GO Transit should be determined
by the GTSB.
* it must be made clear to municipalities that the introduction of the
GTSB will not result in forced amalgamation or other jurisdictional
changes within the GTA.
11. 0 THE FARROW REPORT: GETTING TOGETHER
11.1 On June 18, 1997, the Office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing released Mr. Farrows report entitled "GETTING TOGETHER" (a copy
of this report is available in the office of the Chief Administrative
Officer for perusal) . The press release that accompanied the report
stated that comments on the recommendations would be received by the
Ministry until July 31, 1997.
11.2 On July 7, 1997, Staff presented Report #ADMIN. 36-97 to Council for
consideration (Attach. B) and Council passed the following resolution:
ADMIN. 8 - 98 8
"That Report #ADMIN. 36-97 be received;
That the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to
give the Municipality of Clarington and the other fringe
municipalities of the GTA, twelve months grace from the time the
legislation is passed to establish the GTSB, to opt out of the
GTA, if they so choose;
That staff be authorized to proceed, under the direction of
Resolution #GPA-43-96, with the assistance of the auditors, as
required, to bring forth a report to Council, to examine the
options of opting out of the GTA; and
THAT a copy of this report be sent to the fringe municipalities of
the GTA and the Region of Durham. "
11.3 Generally, the Farrow Report presented a list of "principles" under
which a Greater Toronto Services Board should operate, and laid out
three potential models for the structure of the committee. The models
went from a "single purpose" board dedicated to consensus building, to
one that had limited powers, to a board that had total control over
services such as infrastructure requirements, sewer and water, waste
disposal, etc. All three models gave the proposed board operational
control over GO Transit.
11.4 The proposed structure of the Executive Committee that would direct the
operations of the proposed Board did not favour the rural municipalities
within the GTA. One of the more worrisome proposals in the report was
that once a municipality became a member of the Board, there was no
mechanism for withdrawal. In fact, the report clearly recommended that,
"The GTSB should be organized in a way which ensures the inclusion and
participation of all municipalities in the GTA and, others, as
circumstances dictate. THERE SHOULD BE NO PROVISION FOR MUNICIPALITIES
TO OPT OUT OF MEMBERSHIP. "
11.5 Another recommendation that caused concern was the legislated ability of
the Board to change its mandate without going through the public or
legislative process.
12. 0 COMMUNICATION WITH THE MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING.
12.1 Having concern for the structure of the Board and the way the powerful
Executive Committee seemed to exclude the rural or "fringe"
municipalities of the GTA, the mayors of the rural municipalities within
Durham Region, namely Clarington, Scugog, Uxbridge, and Brock, met with
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing shortly after the release
of the Farrow Report, and voiced their concerns about that portion of
the Report. It was explained to the Minister that preliminary studies
showed that the "fringe" municipalities may be better served if they
were to opt out of the proposed GTAB prior to its establishment. As
these studies were not "in depth" studies, it was requested that
municipalities be given a window of opportunity to investigate their
role in the proposed Board, without being locked in to the organization.
It was felt that the Minister understood the request and appreciated the
concerns of the deputation.
13.0 GTSB/GTA OPTIONS FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
13 .1 On October 14, 1997, Council had before it ADMIN. 41-97 (Attach. C) ,
which addressed the pros and cons of remaining within the GTSB or
leaving the GTSB, which would mean a separation from the Region of
ADMIN. 8 - 98 9
Durham.
13.2 Although this report was based on a superficial study of the financial
impact of leaving the Region, it did suggest that Clarington would have
a number of options, based on "purchase of service" agreements with the
surrounding municipalities, including Durham Region.
13 .3 After due consideration of this report, Council was of the opinion that
it would be premature to adopt the recommendations within the report if
there was still the possibility that the "fringe" municipalities would
be given time to study the issue of not being part of the GTSB.
13.4 Council therefor passed the following motion:
"THAT Report ADMIN. 41-97 be received;
THAT the Municipality of Clarington endorse the Rural Mayors'
recommendation requesting a three year grace period from the time the
legislation is passed to opt out of the GTA and the Greater Toronto
Services Board (GTSB) ; and
THAT a copy of Report ADMIN. 41-97 be forwarded to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, Al Leach, all M.P.P.s in the 11905" area,
the Townships of Scugog, Uxbridge and Brock, the Peterborough County
Board of Education and the Northumberland and Clarington Board of
Education and the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington Roman
Catholic Separate School Board.
13.5 Since the passing of the Council resolution covering ADMIN. 41-97, there
had been no further communication from the Province until the release of
the draft legislation on the Proposed Greater Toronto Services Board
Act.
14.0 A PROPOSED GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT
THE REPORT
14 .1 On March 12, 1998, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and HOUSING
released a report entitled A PROPOSED GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD
ACT. The report took the form of draft legislation to create a Greater
Toronto Services Board (GTSB) . The intent of the proposed legislation is
to create a GTSB to promote better co-ordination and integration of
inter-regional services across the Greater Toronto Area. The report
stems from the previous position papers on the subject that have been
presented by Mr. Milt Farrow, Special Advisor to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing. It would appear that Mr. Farrows job is
now complete and the proposed legislation is now in the hands of Mr.
Alan Tonks, GTSB Review Moderator, who will be meeting with
representatives of the member municipalities within the GTA, and other
interested parties, in order that he may coordinate responses to the
proposed legislation for presentation to the Minister.
14.2 The proposed legislation suggests that the key roles of the GTSB would
be to:
• set the policy direction and allocate the costs of GO Transit;
• promote coordination decision-making and use of infrastructure
provide advice to GTA municipalities on key infrastructure investments;
ADMIN. 8 - 98 10
• be a discussion forum and liaise with all levels of government;
• when requested, act as a facilitator to help resolve inter-municipal
issues;
• provide a mechanism to coordinate economic development in the GTA;
• provide a forum for municipalities to discuss the administration and
costs of their social services and social housing programs in the GTA;
14.3 It is suggested that some issues the GTSB might involve itself in during
its first term include:
* developing criteria for the GTSB`s interests in various GTA inter-
regional matters and how its role might be expanded or changed;
* preparing an advisory document on an infrastructure coordination
strategy, including a growth management/countryside plan;
* preparing an advisory document on the integration of inter-regional
transit.
14.4 The Ministry has made a point of stating that the GTSB will NOT be
another level of government and does not have direct taxation authority.
However, the proposed legislation does give the Board the right to levy
costs against the member municipalities, namely the City of Toronto and
the Regions.
15.0 REPRESENTATION AND MEMBERSHIP
15.1 The Board would be made up of 28 members appointed by councils of each
region and the City of Toronto from their own council membership and a
chair selected by the GTSB who is not a member of any council. The chair
would only vote to break a tie. Membership would be based on population
with seats allocated as follows:
Region of Durham 3 members
Region of Halton 2 members
Region of Peel 5 members
City of Toronto 14 members
Region of York 4 members
The Region of Hamilton-Wentworth would also have two members who would
be entitled to vote and otherwise act as members of the GTSB only when
matters related to GO Transit were under consideration.
16. 0 STRUCTURE
16.1 It is recommended that the GTSB would be permitted to establish standing
committees as required. It would be able to appoint to such committees
not only GTSB members, but also members of upper or lower-tier GTA
municipal councils.
16 .2 A Greater Toronto Transit Authority, reporting to the GTSB, would be
established to operate the GO Transit regional transit system.
17.0 FINANCING AND STAFFING
17.1 As previously stated, the operations of the GTSB would be funded by its
member municipalities, namely the City of Toronto and the Regions, and
borrowing would only be permitted to finance GO Transit operations and
ADMIN. 8 - 98 11
capital. The GTSB would be permitted to hire staff as necessary.
18.0 OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF GO TRANSIT
18.1 The proposed legislation states that GO Transit, currently operated by
the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, would be transferred to
the newly established GT Transit authority. GT Transit would be a
corporation without share capital, separate from, but reporting to, the
GTSB.
18.2 The GT Transit authority would have its own Board of Directors
responsible for day-to-day operations. For the initial term, the current
GO Transit directors and chair would be the GT Transit authority's
Board. For subsequent terms, each member municipality, namely the City
of Toronto and the Regions, including Hamilton-Wentworth, would appoint
one member from amongst its GTSB members. The chair of GT Transit would
be chosen by the GTSB.
18.3 The GTSB would be responsible for approval of GT Transit's budget,
determining a funding allocation formula and system planning.
19.0 STAFF COMMENTS
19.1 Upon reviewing the draft legislation, entitled A Proposed Greater
Toronto Services Board Act, that was released on March 12, 1998, Staff
have a number of concerns and comments that are presented in three
categories. They are as follows:
(A) GENERAL COMMENTS; (B) SPECIFIC COMMENTS; (C) OBSERVATIONS
19.2 (A) GENERAL COMMENTS
There are five major general concerns that have been identified in the
proposed legislation. Scope, Board Composition, Accountability,
Autonomy, and the opportunity for local municipalities to "Opt Out" .
i SCOPE
i-a The wording of the proposed legislation seems to be deliberately
vague and is suggestive of an unlimited scope and mandate. Upon
reviewing the recent history of the Greater Toronto Area, both the
Golden Report and the Crombie Review recommended the dissolving of
Regional Governments within the GTA, replacing them with a strong
Greater Toronto Area Board that would be given the mandate to
cross regional boundaries to deliver services in the area of
policing, transit, water and sewer, waste, expressways, planning,
etc. , working with local municipalities on a division of
responsibilities. Initially, this approach seemed to be endorsed
by the Ministry. However, after a great amount of political
opposition from the 11905" regions that surrounded Metro Toronto,
the direction of the Ministry changed with the terms of reference
and interim findings of the Farrow Report, which offered three
different models for the GTSB.
i-b The draft legislation that is now being presented provides
authority for the operation of GT Transit only, and leaves all
other responsibilities to a coordinating role. However, it is
ADMIN. 8 - 98 12
clear from reading the media reports that surrounds the document
that the Provincial Government sees the proposed legislation as
the first step in a growing mandate for the GTSB, and any
expansion of authority will be driven by the Board rather than the
Province. As the voting power of the board is tipped towards the
representatives of the new mega-city, the lower tier
municipalities are in danger of seeing their mandate reduced in
the years to come.
i-c The major change of direction can be found in the proposed GTSB
being made up of representatives of the regions rather than the
local municipalities. Clearly, the proposed legislations consider
the "municipalities" as regional and not local. Other than being
called upon to serve on committees from time to time, there is no
role for the lower tier municipalities in this exercise.
ii BOARD COMPOSITION
ii-a As previously mentioned, the make-up of the proposed Board is
equally split between Toronto and the surrounding regions. The
danger in this type of a division in voting power is that it's
reasonable to assume that the Toronto representatives will be
centrally focused on most matters and the regional representatives
will be coming from a number of different directions, thereby
having the inner city in a "control" position. Board composition
is not restricted after the initial term, and the Board has the
ability to change its composition without going through the
legislative process or public input.
ii-b As the Region of Durham is limited to three seats on the Board, it
is a distinct possibility that a lower tier municipality the size
of Clarington will not have an elected representative on the
Board. This being the case, the taxpayer of Clarington will be
faced with taxation without representation when it comes to
financial matters of the newly created Board. This, of course, is
not an acceptable position for the residents of Clarington.
iii ACCOUNTABILITY
iii-a The proposed legislation recommends no approval body when it comes
to authorizing spending or debt issuance other than the Board
itself. There is no requirement to consult, or any provision for
municipal stakeholders such as Clarington to have any input or
impact except through the Regional representatives to the Board.
The report states that all debts will be those of the member
municipalities and not the Board of GT Transit.
iii-b During the upper and lower tier budget process, there is a
requirement to hold all meetings in a public forum. This ensures
an opportunity for public input into spending decisions. This
does not appear to be part of the GTSB process.
iv AUTONOMY
iv-a The language in the proposed legislation is far from specific.
References are made to "Necessary modifications" to other Acts,
without specific references to what those might be. This leaves
the impression that this is a Board with ultimate autonomy, power,
and authority.
v OPTING OUT
ADMIN. 8 - 98 13
v-a The Golden Report specifically discussed a restructuring of the
boundaries of the Greater Toronto Area. However, when Milt Farrow
presented his interim report, entitled Getting Together, one of
the recommendations was that once municipalities became part of a
GTSB, there would be no "opting out" .
v-b This became a concern of the "rural" municipalities within the
GTA, and a meeting took place in the Fall of 1997 at which a
number of mayors from the "rural" municipalities met with the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, requesting time to
study the question of membership in a GTSB. Although the Minister
seemed to accept the mayors` position, the proposed legislation is
silent on the subject.
v-c The press release that was issued by the Province at the time they
appointed Mr. Alan Tonks as Review Moderator, stated that, "Tonks
will also consult on the need for a review of the external
boundaries of the GTA. " This statement gives the impression that a
restructuring of the GTA boundaries may very well be a
possibility.
19.3 (B) SPECIFIC COMMENTS
i WEIGHTED ASSESSMENT
Page V of the Explanatory Notes in the report reference
regulations that will define such major issues as "weighted
assessment" which is to be the basis for apportionment of costs
surrounding the levy that will be passed to the Regions and the
City of Toronto. However, the Regulation is not yet available and
must be made available for review and comment before actual costs
can be determined.
ii LIABILITIES AND DEBT
ii-a Page VIII of the Explanatory Notes in the report state that
liabilities and debt incurred by the Board becomes a debt of the
member municipalities and not the GT Transit or the GTSB. This
leaves little accountability to the GTSB. The taxpayers of
Clarington, who probably will not have direct representation on
the Board, will be apportioned the cost of such debt through the
apportioned Regional Levy.
ii-b The proposed legislation also states that the GTSB will be able to
impose a levy for both GT Transit capital borrowing and for the
operating costs and unfunded liabilities. This may be an
indication that the existing unfunded liabilities (of
municipalities like Toronto, or the Province) , for such areas as
pension commitments, WCB liabilities, and existing debt may be
transferred to the member municipalities. Any existing debt and
liabilities should be absorbed by the Province before any
responsibility is transferred to the GTSB as it will ultimately be
apportioned to the member municipalities.
iii RAIL TRANSIT SERVICE CHANGE AND POWER OF THE BOARD
iii-a Pages VIII and IX of the Report suggest that the GT Transit will
have final decision making powers on transit matters. It states
that the Minister of Transportation is to be notified of any
changes of service and may only defer the change up to 180 days.
ADMIN. 8 - 98 14
iv COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD
iv-a With fifty percent of the voting members of the Board coming from
the City of Toronto, there is a concern as to governance. Page
three of the Report addresses changes in the composition of the
Board once population figures are obtained from the census
process. The proposals state that, "the Board shall, after
receiving a census of population conducted under the authority of
the Parliament of Canada, review the composition of the Board. "
iv-b It goes on to say that, "If the Board concludes that its
composition should be changed to reflect the results of that
census, IT MAY, by by-law, change the size of the Board and the
number of members appointed by each member municipality, "subject
to two rules spelled out in the proposed legislation.
iv-c It is safe to assume that with the majority of growth taking place
outside of the City of Toronto, it wouldn't be long before the
member municipalities outside of the City of Toronto would have
the majority of votes on the Board. As any such change must come
about from a vote of the Board itself, there could be a problem in
bringing about any change of the Board's structure.
v AFFECTED MUNICIPALITIES
v-a Page seven of the Report spells out certain powers of the Board.
Upon reviewing same it becomes difficult to understand if these
powers are limited to the member municipalities of the Board,
(Regions and Toronto) or lower tier municipalities throughout the
GTA.
v-b If it assumed that the Board's powers reach down to the lower tier
municipalities, there seems to be no vehicle for either input by
the affected municipalities or appeal process to the decisions of
the Board.
vi COST CONTROLS
vi-a The Board prepares and adopts its own annual operating budget. The
proposed legislation does not require approval from the Province.
This could be a concern, given the potential biased composition of
the Board as previously referred to in this Report. The Board must
only present an Annual Report for member municipalities and the
Minister of Municipal Affairs. Such a report will only confirm
expenditures made, but will not indicate a truly accountable
process.
vi-b The mandate of the Board is so vast and it affects many areas of
jurisdiction and geographics. In the local and region budget
process, all meetings are public and decisions made are contained
within the boundaries they govern. The public, who elect the
Council members to act on their behalf are therefore accountable
to that public and are accessible. The GTSB will be remote,
inaccessible and will be making decisions on cross regional issues
of major significance. It is recommended that the Province set
standards for each area or jurisdiction and that municipalities
have input into the standards that are to be set.
vii DEBT CAPACITY
vii-a The GTSB will have the ability to borrow money and issue
debentures for capital requirements of the GT Transit and to
ADMIN. 8 - 98 15
direct one or more member municipalities to pay money to the GT
Transit in respect of its capital requirements. The debt will
become the debt of the municipality and not that of the GTSB or
the GT Transit. The concern is that local Municipal and Regional
debt capacity will be eroded by the GT Transit debt, thereby
potentially affecting their capital growth and development plans.
There is also a concern that, with the ability of the Board to
apply the debt to one or more member municipalities, the fiscally
responsible municipalities like Clarington, who have debt
capacity, may be required to pay based on capacity and not capital
infrastructure received.
viii POWERS OF THE BOARD
viiia Section 47 of the proposed legislation, spells out the powers of
the Board. Under subsection L, page 25 of the report, it states
that the Board may, by by-law, " do any other things incidental or
conducive to the attainment of its object under paragraph 2 of
section 3 . This section gives the Board complete authority and
autonomy.
ix THE GTSB POWERS AND PRIVILEGES OF A "NATURAL PERSON"
ix-a Section 17.1 of the proposed legislation (page 8) gives the GTSB
the powers and privileges of a "natural person", when it comes to
carrying out the objects of the proposed mandate.
ix-b What this means, is, that the GTSB may operate as any individual
may operate, staying within the laws of the land, and it is not
restricted by other legislation.
ix-c In other words, the Board can elaborate, or determine, its own
powers, as long as it operates within the "laws of the land" .
ix-d In 1953, the newly established Metropolitan Toronto was seen as a
"co-ordinating" body, but it wasn't long before it spread itself
into every aspect of municipal services, from waste management to
land-use decisions.
x OPTING OUT BY LOWER TIER MUNICIPALITIES
x-a The proposed legislation gives no process to municipalities who
would wish to "opt out" of the Greater Toronto Services Board.
(C) OBSERVATIONS
i It is interesting to note that a number of the recommendations put
forward by Clarington on April 7, 1997, in response to the initial
document presented by the Province outlining the Terms of
Reference for the Farrow Report, entitled "Developing the
Framework for a Greater Toronto Services Board: A Discussion
Paper" (see 10.6 of this report) , have been adopted in the
proposed legislation that has been produced by the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing.
ii This, however, does not satisfy the concerns voiced by Clarington
in response to the second "Farrow" document, entitled, "Getting
Together", as well as concerns with the proposed legislation, as
ADMIN. 8 - 98 16
outlined in this report.
iii The positions taken by Clarington Council in the summer and autumn
of 1997, are stated in Attachments B and C, are still valid, and
should be repeated to the Provincial Facilitator, Mr. Tonks.
iv It is abundantly clear that should the proposed legislation be
enacted by the Provincial Government, as it now stands, lower tier
municipalities, such as Clarington, will receive very few benefits
from the GTSB, yet will have its ratepayers called upon to
participate in the paying of the cost of operation, as well as the
outcome of whatever contractual agreements that the Board should
enter into in the future, without having any direct representation
on the Board.
v The concept of "NO Taxation Without Representation", is still
valid.
vi As previously advised, a meeting with the Provincial Facilitator,
Mr. Alan Tonks, has been set up in the Clarington Municipal
Offices on April 1, 1998, at 9 a.m. , for the purpose of giving
Council the opportunity to dialogue with Mr. Tonks and put forth
Clarington's response to the proposed legislation to establish a
Greater Toronto Services Board.
v Prior to that date, the Mayor of Clarington will be meeting with
Mr. Tonks, along with the Durham "rural" mayors, to discuss the
proposed legislation and their request to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, to be given time to carry out
studies in order to base an informed decision on the possibility
of "opting out" of the proposed GTSB catchment area.
vi At the Council meeting of March 30, 1998, when this report is to
be considered by Council, the Mayor will update Council on the
outcome of the meeting with Mr. Tonks and the "rural" mayors.
19.4 A CLARINGTON RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED GTSB LEGISLATION
19.5 Upon reviewing all of the documentation that has been presented in this
report, staff is of the opinion that the issues of Clarington's role in
the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board is probably the most
important issue that has been placed before Council in the twenty-five
year history of this municipality. It is clear that the GTSB will be
the driving force in directing the future of all the member
municipalities within its catchment area. -
19.6 Under the present terms of the proposed legislation, there is no
guarantee that Clarington will be allowed to continue to determine its
own destiny in the areas of services, costs, and even land-use
development.
19.7 The Greater Toronto Services Board will eventually fulfil the
recommendations of both Golden and Crombie, taking the place of one, or
both, levels of government within the Regions of the GTA.
19.8 The Crombie governance vision of "A smaller number of large cities, with
a strong urban core City of Toronto that will be able to deliver local
services effectively, and provide avenues for democratic citizen
participation and accountability. The Panel believes that what is
needed today is a mechanism to knit municipalities in the regions to
the Toronto core in much the same way that the 1953 governance
arrangements did with downtown Toronto and Metro suburbs will
ADMIN. 8 - 98 17
19.7 The Greater Toronto Services Board will eventually fulfil the
recommendations of both Golden and Crombie, taking the place of one, or
both, levels of government within the Regions of the GTA.
19.8 The Crombie governance vision of "A smaller number of large cities, with
a strong urban core City of Toronto that will be able to deliver local
services effectively, and provide avenues for democratic citizen
participation and accountability. The Panel believes that what is
needed today is a mechanism to knit municipalities in the regions to
the Toronto core in much the same way that the 1953 governance
arrangements did with downtown Toronto and Metro suburbs", will
eventually result from the proposed legislation that is now out for
comment.
20. 0 CONCLUSIONS
20.1 Council should again make it clear that the proposed establishment of a
GTSB is not in the best interest of the ratepayers of Clarington.
20.2 Council should request the Province NOT to pass such open ended
legislation that would grant autonomy to a Board that has such wide
jurisdiction without an opportunity for full public input.
20.3 Council should request the Province to publish, for public input,
proposed regulations and standards within which the GTSB would operate
before passing any legislation of this magnitude.
20.4 Council should again advise the Province of its endorsement of the Rural
Mayors' recommendation requesting a three year grace period from the
time the legislation is passed to opt out of the GTA and the Greater
Toronto Services Board.
20.5 Council should direct staff to commence with the drafting of TERMS OF
REFERENCE for the number of studies needed to be carried out to assist
Council in deciding how Clarington would function as a municipality
should it decide to request permission from the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing to leave the GTA and the GTSB, as articulated in
staff's report of October 6, 1997, ADMIN. 41-97 (Attach C) .
Respectfully submitted,
W. H. Ao
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment "A" to Report
ADMIN. 8-98
INE40APORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINQTON `
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # ®3• G
Date: Monday;Aprri147, 1997' Res. # I_97
ADMIN-12-97 F1 a3a-97•
Report #: File #: By-law #
Subject: GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD:
POSITION PAPER OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report Admin 12-97 be received;
2. THAT the attached position paper and its recommendations be endorsed as the
position of the Municipality of Clarington on the proposal to establish a Greater
Toronto Services Board; and
3. THAT a copy of Council's resolution and this report be forwarded to Mr. M
Farrow, Special Advisor to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, M.P.P.
John O'Toole, the Regional Municipality of Durham and the regional and area
municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area.
At its meeting of March 24, 1997, Council referred a number of correspondence items
pertaining to a proposal to establish a Greater Toronto Services Board to the Mayor and
Chief Administrative Officer and directed that a recommended position be prepared for
Council's endorsement on April 7, 1997.
At the same meeting Council endorsed a resolution of the Regional Municipality of
Durham,which included the following:
• the creation of a Greater Toronto Services Board with the authority to manage,
deliver or generate capital for services was not supported;
�` 1247
Y,
i ADMIN 12-97 RAGE 2
• if established, representation on the Board should be inclusive of the member
municipalities within the Greater Toronto Area and include the active participation
of the Province; and
• that if the Province were to create such a Board, its authority and mandate should
be limited to providing a forum for the discussion of long-term strategic planning
for the GTA, coordination of cross-boundary servicing issues, and dispute
resolution through facilitation and mediation.
The attached Position Paper amplifies the basic position outlined by the above resolution
and is forwarded to Council for endorsement.
Respectfully submitted,
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative Officer
Attach.
April 3, 1997
1248
Greater Toronto
Services Board:
Position Paper of Me
Municipality of CWngton
April 7, 1997
OVANNOWMWMAMMMMOMWEINMEM
1249
Report
a
The Provincial Government has proposed the establishment of a Greater
Toronto Services Board(GTSB)to plan and coordinate service delivery across
the Greater Toronto Area(GTA). Mr. Milt Farrow was appointed as Special
Advisor on the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB)to advise the
Government on how to implement the GTSB.
In order to stimulate discussion on the proposed role and operation of such a
Board, a document was prepared entitled"Developing the Framework for a
Greater Toronto Services Board:A Discussion Paper". It addresses the
terms of reference for Mr. Farrow's appointment, specifically:
• the authority and powers of the GTSB;
• how should the GTSB be governed;
• what type of services should the GTSB concern itself with;
• how it should be paid for; and
• what relationship it should have with municipalities,the public and the
province.
This report has been prepared for Council's consideration in response to the
discussion paper.
Context
Clarington is situated on the eastern periphery of the Greater Toronto Area. It
is a consolidation of four municipalities established with the introduction of
regional government in 1974. In area,it is the size of Metro Toronto. It has
strong rural roots but recent growth has resulted in increasingly stronger ties
to the urban communities of the larger metropolitan area. Clarington is a
successful working example of the integration of urban and rural communities
in a single administrative unit.
2 1251
Clarington's previous positions on municipal reform have been:
• Clarington is a viable economic union of communities and there should be
no changes to its current boundaries;
• the proposed formation of a Greater Toronto Regional Government was not
supported;
• the current Regional government has proven itself to be a cost-efficient,
accessible and accountable level of government and should not be dissolved;
• the 7 Point Plan of the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs(February 16,
1996)was endorsed,including the establishment of a GTA Coordinating
Forum; and
• the Rural Mayors Report was endorsed which also identified the need for a
GTA Coordinating Forum.
There is wide consensus that change is needed to address the problems of the
Greater Toronto Area. These problems are more profound in the centre than
they are at the periphery. Clarington has always been willing to see that the
good of the whole GTA depends on the health of all parts. Thus, Clarington
has participated in the process to improve the current system of governance
and service delivery in the GTA.
All of the work over the past few years on shaping growth and reforming
governance in the Greater Toronto Area has recognized that the health of the
GTA lies in addressing the needs of its components.. A strong vibrant GTA
requires a form of governance and the delivery of service which can address the
needs of the core urban centre,the suburban growth areas and the rural
hinterland areas as an integrated whole. Urban populations cannot be
artificially separated from rural areas.
Clarington fulfils a key role in the GTA: its residents are part of the GTA labour
force, its recreation areas and open spaces are utilized by the urban residents,its
agriculture and aggregate resources of contribute to the economy of the GTA.
The transportation problems of the GTA cannot be solved without addressing
the"lifestyle choice"of the many residents who choose to live in the smaller
communities like Courtice, Bowmanville,Newcastle and Orono while working
in the larger communities of the GTA.
Municipal boundaries by their nature are artificial:there is no such thing as a
"natural urban boundary". Urban boundaries can never fully account for
complex economic relationships,natural features, or social and cultural
3 1252
characteristics of its residents. Municipal administration must be large enough
to efficiently deliver services to its residents but small enough to be fully
accountable to its taxpayers.
Any changes to municipal governance and service delivery must not only be
built on principles of efficiency but it must appropriately balance the principles
of equity and accountability. Efficiencies cannot be achieved by weakening
some municipalities to create a few strong governing units. The delivery of
services cannot be made more efficient by reducing accountability with
structures that cannot be accessed by local residents and businesses.
Coordination in the GTA
Clarington Council supports the retention of the Regional level of
government as the primary service delivery vehicle for the major
infrastructure requirements of the Greater Toronto Area. This level of
government is large enough to provide the economies of scale and the levels of
expertise necessary to deliver expensive infrastructure and social services and
yet remains close enough to its residents to deliver accessible and accountable
government.
At the same time,we recognise the need for the coordination of major
infrastructure improvements. As the Province appears to be abandoning its
traditional role in coordinating and assisting in resolving inter-municipal
disputes,there is a role for some structure to undertake this work. The GTSB
may be the vehicle for this role.
The immediate problem
There are varying views on the powers and authority that the GTSB should be
granted. The difficulty for the government is that there is widespread consensus
that the GTSB should not be another level of government. If it has limited
powers,the coordinating function is largely dependent on persuasion and good-
will. The task of coordinating may not be effective if the new agency has no
teeth. On the other hand,by providing the GTSB with a strong mandate with
regulatory and funding powers to influence decisions,there is the inherent
problem that this new agency would,for all intents and purposes, be perceived
as another level of government.
The longterm problem
The Discussion Paper indicates that a flexible framework should be created for
the GTSB which would allow it to grow and change over time. This
evolutionary approach would see the GTSB gradually assuming more services
as it becomes better established. Over the long term, it would seem that one
4 1253
level of government will need to be eliminated to find a home for the GTSB.
This is not part of the Special Advisor's mandate. However,decisions should
not be made to introduce the GTSB without a clear direction from the
government about the future of governance for the four Regions in the
GTA. Will Regional government be eliminated? Will Durham become a city-
Region like Metropolitan Toronto?Neither of these are acceptable to
Clarington.
In defining a role for the Greater Toronto Services Board,the following
principles should be used:
• it will result in a stronger GTA;
• it strengthens local municipalities and recognizes locally-elected
representatives;
• it recognizes regional governments as the primary service delivery vehicles
for higher order services;
• it solves inter-regional or cross-boundary problems;
• it is accountable and understandable to the taxpayer.
Role of the GTSB
The Discussion Paper identifies six possible roles for the proposed Greater
Toronto Services Board as follows:
Strategic Planning
The GTSB would establish the direction for fixture servicing needs,
specifically relating land use plans to a strategic plan for the provision of
infrastructure and services such as transportation, sanitary sewer and
water supply services.
• Coordination
The coordination of cross-boundary plans and services could be
undertaken in a variety of ways. It could be a loosely structured forum
to coordinate the timing of infrastructure improvements more through
the power of persuasion and co-operation. Alternatively,the GTSB
could have a coordinating role through specific regulatory functions or
budgetary approval processes. For example,the GTSB could be
empowered to approve regional and area municipal servicing plans or
regional capital budgets.
5 1254
• Management
The GTSB could have a direct role in the management of infrastructure
and services. If this role was chosen,the GTSB would determine the
service standards,decide who should deliver the services(public or
private sector)and would probably own the infrastructure.
• Service Delivery
The highest level of responsibility would involve the GTSB not just in
planning,coordinating and managing services but it would be
responsible for all aspects of the service including delivery,operating
and capital financing,and the setting of user rates. It would be similar to
a commission under the Public Utilities Act.
Dispute Resolution
Another possible role for the GTSB would be that of a dispute resolution
agency for servicing issues. The Board would have powers to require
additional studies or analysis and make binding decisions on the service
providers. The GTSB would replace the role currently filled by
provincial ministries and/or the Ontario Municipal Board.
• Capital Generation
The GTSB could have a role in assisting municipalities to find capital
funding for servicing projects. It is proposed that by using the entire
financial base of the GTA,the GTSB could get a better rate for long-
term borrowing.
Clarington's position is that the GTSB should generally be limited to roles
of strategic planning,coordination and dispute resolution. The only
exceptions to the above is that the GTSB could assume the management and
service delivery function for GO Transit and could assume the municipal role
for economic development in the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance.
Strategic planning should be undertaken with full participation of municipal
staff. It should focus on the broad parameters of growth with a specific
emphasis on development patterns,population and employment forecasting,
transportation and servicing requirement.
6 1255
The coordination function should be undertaken in a forum without regulatory
powers. It would rely primarily on persuasion and cooperation. However, it could
fulfill its role without undermining regional government with the following powers:
• in the case of disputes,the GTSB would be the binding authority
(provided that each region and Metro Toronto had parity in
representation); and
• the GTSB would approve the capital plans and budgets for each regional
authority for specied cross-boundary services identified in the GTA
infrastructure plan.
Services
An evolutionary approach to the types of services under the jurisdiction of the
GTSB seems to be the preferred direction of the government. This has been
described as the"walk before you run" approach. Under this process,the GTSB
would have legislative framework for a large number of services but only a few
services would be designated by the Minister initially. Over time, it is proposed by
the Province that that additional services would be added to the mandate of the
Board. This evolutionary approach is viewed with much concern by the
Municipality.
GO Transit
The Province has asked the Special Advisor to give special attention to the
importance of GO Transit as part of his broader review. The Discussion Paper notes
that the government intends to transfer responsibility for GO Transit to the
municipal sector later in 1997.
Given the government's commitment to download responsibility for GO Transit,
this is one of the few areas of direct service delivery which the GTSB would
assume. It is a service which extends across the entire GTA and beyond.
Since funding will become a 100 percent responsibility of the municipal sector,the
GTSB should determine the funding formula for operating costs that are not
recovered through user fees. The funding formula must reflect the level of service
to the benefiting communities including those outside of the GTA.
7 1256
Transit
There is a strong need for the coordination of municipal transit systems in the GTA.
In Durham and many other parts of the GTA,transit systems are operated by area
municipalities. This has led to a patchwork approach with"have"and"have not"
municipalities. While social services are concentrated in larger municipalities,
residents of smaller communities have no access to these services except by public
transit. Most transit systems do not cross municipal boundaries,fare and transfer
privileges are inconsistent,there is duplication of service between GO buses and
local transit buses and there is a lack of a long range plan for an integrated transit
system.
The first critical step is to establish regional transit systems outside of the Metro
Toronto Area: Durham in the east; York in the north and Peel/Halton in the west.
The TTC should continue as a regional transit authority within Toronto. The
consolidation of the 16 local transit systems into four regional level transit systems
would overcome many of the existing problems and yet accountability would
remain at the regional level of government.
Even with this consolidation into regional transit systems,there would be an
important role for the GTSB in planning and coordinating the overall transit services
in the GTA. There would be a need to integrate the four regional transit systems
with the inter-regional GO Transit system. The goal would be the establishment of
a seamless transit service and the coordination with broader transportation policy for
the GTA.
Inter-regional Roads
The government is reducing the provincial role in planning, funding and operating
roads which are considered to have more of a regional or inter-regional role.
Regions have been able to construct, operate the regional road system in an efficient
manner. However,there have been problems in planning and coordinating the
construction of roads with an inter-regional function. For many years the Region of
Durham has been attempting to improve connections with Metropolitan Toronto
without much success. The Taunton-Steeles connection, even when constructed in
Durham,was not coordinated with improvements in Metro Toronto.
Clarington believes there is a role for the GTSB in planning and coordinating the
major arterial road system within a broader transportation plan which includes
provincial highways,GO Transit and regional transit systems. The GTSB would
also have a valuable role in resolving disputes. However,Clarington supports the
retention of regional government as the agency responsible for the construction,
operation and maintenance of the arterial road system.
8 1257
Sanitary Sewers and Water
Regional governments have been effectively constructing and operating sanitary
sewer and water supply services over the past 20 years. These systems have been
managed in partnership with the Province. The Province has established standards
for sewer and water supply systems and the regions have determined the best
method for delivery. There is no need to establish a system for the GTA which
differs from other parts of the Province.
It has been noted,however,that there are some cross-boundary problems which
have not been effectively or efficiently addressed under the current system. In
particular,urban areas or entire regions which do not have the benefit of lake-based
services are dependent on servicing through other urban centres or regions. It is
recognized that there is a need for a servicing master plan to address infrastructure
needs which transcend regional boundaries, and that disputes between regions need
to be resolved without protracted and costly negotiations.
To address these concerns, Clarington would support a limited role for the GTSB in
strategic planning, coordination and dispute resolution for sanitary sewer and water
supply infrastructure.
Waste Management
Clarington views with deep concern any proposal which would consolidate
responsibility for waste management with the GTSB. Given its large land area,
Clarington has been the focus of past efforts to establish a solid waste management
mega-facility.
Waste management is a very complex and politically sensitive matter. Any agency
or level of government which is responsible for siting new facilities must have full
accountability. It cannot operate at arm's length from the residents who would be
closely affected. The previous failures to achieve a GTA-wide solution would
indicate that a regional solution has a better chance of success. Accordingly,
Clarington does not support any role for the GTSB in waste management.
We have noted,however,that the current division of responsibility for collection
and disposal between the two levels of municipal government is not the most
effective way. In this regard,we would endorse the Consensus Report of the GTA
Mayors and Chairs (March 17, 1997)which proposes a consolidation of the
collection and disposal function in one level of government. Clarington would
support the consolidation of the waste management functions at the regional level of
government.
9 1258
Economic Development
The current disjointed approach to marketing the economic heart of the Canada has
not been competitive nor efficient in attracting international business to the GTA.
To counter this weakness,recent efforts have been made to develop a separate
corporation funded by both the public and private sector. The Greater Toronto
Marketing Alliance should be operational by the end of 1997 with a mandate to
attract new investment in the GTA from outside Ontario. A total of five municipal
representatives(one from each region and Metro Toronto)would sit on the 16
member Board of Directors.
The GTSB would be the logical agency assigned the responsibility for
representing the municipal sector in the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance.
The economic development efforts of this agency could be coordinated with the
strategic planning role for infrastructure in the GTA.
Local municipalities would still have an important role in the economic
development relating to existing businesses. Clarington supports a role for local
municipalities in retaining and supporting existing businesses.
Membership
The Discussion Paper proposes two options for membership on the GTSB. The
first is based on parity: each Region would elect one or two members. In this
model each Region is treated as an equal partner. The second option is based on
representation by population. Three different formulas were proposed resulting in
either a Board of either 9, 11 or 14 members.
Consistent with our position that the Board is not a level of government and
will not be funding or delivering services (with the exception of GO Transit),
there is no need for membership to be based on representation by
population.
Membership on the GTSB should be based on equal representation from
each Region and the Metro Toronto Area. This representation should include
the Regional Chairs and representatives of the local level of government in each
Region and the Metro Toronto Area. Local representation could either be:
• the Mayors of each constituent municipality; or
• an equal number of local municipal representatives from each Region and
Metro elected from the local municipalities. For example, each Region
10 1259
could have its Chair and four area municipal representatives resulting in a
Board of 25 persons.
The important aspect is that both upper-tier and lower-tier municipal
representation (or its equivalent for the Metro Toronto Area) should be included
in the decision-making process in order to ensure that the principles of
accountability and equity are achieved. There should be no direct election but
municipal representation should be appointed from their own members.
Notwithstanding the above, should the Special Advisor be convinced that
representation by population is important in the membership on the Board, two
matters should be incorporated into the Board structure:
representation on the GTSB should include both regional and local
municipal representation; and
representation should be based on anticipated populations for 2011.
Over the long term,the balance of population in the GTA will shift from Metro
Toronto to the surrounding regions. The Metro Toronto Area currently represents
approximately 50 %of the existing population but it is anticipated to account for
only 36% of the 2011 population. To reflect the needs of the growth areas and to
provide a stable membership structure for the next decade,membership should be
based on the 2011 population forecast.
The GTSB should also include Provincial and possibly Federal
representation in order to be an effective forum for coordination between
municipalities and the senior levels of government. Provincial representation
could either be a single minister for the GTA or representatives of the key
ministries such as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry
of Transportation.
Sub-Committees
In order to fulfill its role effectively, a sub-committee structure should be
established to assist the Board. Sub-committees would be non-political
representatives from the various municipalities and province who would
undertake the detailed work to bring forward recommendations to the Board.
In the case of GO Transit, this sub-committee should include representation from
the service areas outside of the GTA.
11 1260
Initial Membership
The Province should appoint the initial Chair of the GTSB. Following the 2000
elections,the Chair should be appointed by the full GTSB from among its
members. The municipality having its member appointed as Chair would be able
to replace its member.
The Chair would be an ex-officio member and would not have a vote except in the
situation of a tie vote.
Financing
The GTSB would have both administrative and service delivery costs. In no case
should the GTSB have authority to tax directly. The Discussion Paper
indicates that routine administrative costs could be shared equally with each upper
tier municipality paying 20 percent of the cost of the Board. Clarington would
concur that this is appropriate providing that membership on the Board is also
based on parity. If membership is based on a representation by population model,
then administrative expenses should follow the same formula.
Given Clarington's view that the GTSB should have a limited role in service
delivery and is not a level of government,there would be limited financing
required for service delivery.
In the case of GO Transit, operating costs should be funded based on a
combination of user fees and recovery of costs based on the level of service in that
municipality. Capital costs should be determined based on assessment across the
entire service area.
In the case of the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance,the municipal share should
be funded through the GTSB on the basis of equal shares for each
regional./metropolitan area.
Municipal Restructuring
The establishment of the GTSB in 1997 will set the stage for future changes to
municipal administration in the GTA. While the government's vision for municipal
reform in Metropolitan Toronto is clear, there is no equivalent vision for the rest of
the GTA. It would appear that the Toronto model may be the future for the balance
of the Regions in the GTA over time. The GTSB is set to be established to
12 1261
gradually evolve into a broader mandate to deliver a variety of services currently
being administered at the provincial or regional level.
It must be made clear to municipalities that the introduction of the GTSB will
not result in forced amalgamations or other jurisdictional changes within the
GTA. Only locally driven and supported amalgamations supported by the
majority of citizens in each municipality are acceptable.
13 1262
Recommendations:
The Special Advisor on the Greater Toronto Services Board is requested to incorporate the
following recommendations in his report:
1. The regional level of government be retained as the primary service delivery vehicle for
major infrastructure requirements in the GTA
2. The GTSB proposed by the Province be limited to roles of long-term strategic planning
for the GTA, co-ordination of cross-boundary servicing issues and dispute resolution.
3. A legislative framework which provides for an evolutionary process which would
broaden the mandate of the GTSB over time to provide is not acceptable. The
government's vision for the regions in the GTA should be clarified before the
establishment of the Board. In particular,the government should clarify that the
introduction of the GTSB will not result in forced amalgamations or other jurisdictional
changes within the GTA which are not broadly supported and locally driven..
4. The GTSB should have a strong mandate in planning and co-ordinating transit services
in the GTA with the goal of developing a"seamless"transit system through the
following:
• the GTSB would assume the responsibility for GO Transit;
• local transit systems would be consolidated at the regional level of government
(including the TTC in Metro Toronto Area);
• the GTSB would be responsible for the coordination of local transit systems
across regional boundaries.
5. The GTSB should have a strong mandate with respect to Economic Development with a
mandate to attract business from outside of Ontario to the GTA. Local municipalities
should have a complementary role in business retention and expansion.
6. The GTSB should have a limited role with respect to water and sewer services, arterial
roads and waste management limited to strategic planning, coordination of cross-
boundary services and dispute resolution.
14 1263
7. With the exception of the downloaded GO Transit service,the GTSB should not own
any infrastructure.
8. Membership on the GTSB should be based on the following:
• indirect election from existing municipal councils;
• equal representation from each Region and the Metropolitan Toronto Area;
• representation from local and regional municipalities within the GTA; and
• representation from the Province in a non-voting capacity.
9. In the event that the Special Advisor deems that representation should be based on
population,membership should be based on the following:
• indirect election from existing municipal councils;
• representation from local and regional municipalities within the GTA; and
• representation should be based on anticipated populations for 2011.
10. The GTSB should have no authority to tax directly but would levy its costs to the
regional and local municipalities directly.
11. The GTSB administrative costs should be shared on the same formula as the
membership on the Board.
15 1264
Attachment "B" to Report
ADMIN. 8-98
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALliY yr c ivGrvty
REPORT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File#
Date: JULY 7 , 1997 Res. #
By-Law#
Report#: ADMIN. 36-9 Tile#:
Subject: GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD REPORT
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1 . THAT Report No. ADMIN.36-97 be received;
2 . THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be
requested to give the Municipality of Clarington and the
other fringe municipalities of the GTA, twelve months
grace from the time the legislation is passed to
establish the GTSB, to opt out of the GTA, if they so
choose;
3 . THAT staff be authorized to proceed, under the direction
of Resolution #GPA-43-96 , with the assistance of the
auditors, as required, to bring forth a report to
Council, to examine the options of opting out of the GTA;
and
4 . THAT a copy of this report be sent to the fringe
municipalities of the GTA and the Region of Durham.
1 . 0 BACKGROUND
1 . 1 Resolution #GPA-43-96 (copy attached as attachment 1)
which addressed the financial implications of the GTA
report, directed that the Chief Administrative Officer
(CAO) report on the financial implications of withdrawing
from the GTA. The subsequent report of Deloitte and
Touche, under their Recommendation 26 , suggested that
this type of analysis would require the compilation of a
significant quantity of data and as such, that request
was beyond the scope of their report. Now that we have
the Farrow report at hand, it is recommended that the CAO
now continue with this direction, with the assistance of
the auditors as required, to complete the analysis of the
impact of leaving the GTA.
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 2 - July 7, 1997
1 . 2 On December 17 , 1996, the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing appointed Mr. Milt Farrow as his Special
Advisor on the government' s proposed intention to
establish a Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) .
1 . 3 Mr. Farrow' s mandate was to undertake consultation and
advise the Minister on the following matters :
• the GTSB' s authority, or powers;
• how it should be governed;
• what type of services it should concern itself with;
• how it should be funded; and
• what relationship it should have with municipalities,
the public and the province.
1 .4 During the early months of 1997, Mr. Farrow heard a
number of representations regarding the proposed GTSB,
including written submissions from the Region of Durham
and the Municipality of Clarington.
1 . 5 On February 13 , 1997, a discussion paper was released
entitled "Developing A Framework for a Greater Toronto
Services Board" , based on the assumptions that :
• a GTSB would need a legislated mandate to facilitate
better coordination of services across the GTA;
• it would not be another level of government;
• the size and composition of the board would reflect
what the board is to be;
• there were a variety of ways that representation on a
GTSB could be formulated and its membership structured;
• the board could play a number of different roles in the
delivery of services, including strategic planner,
coordinator, manager, delivery agent, resolver of
disputes and generator of capital; and
• funding for the board would be tailored to its specific
functions .
1
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 3 - July 7 , 1997
2 . 0 THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL ADVISOR - "GETTING TOGETHER"
2 . 1 On June 18 , 1997, the Office of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing released Mr. Farrow' s report entitled
Report of the Special Advisor, "GETTING TOGETHER" . The
press release that accompanied the report stated that
comments on the recommendations will be received by the
Ministry until July 31, 1997.
3 . 0 THE PRINCIPLES
3 . 1 The recommendations in the Farrow report are based on the
following principles :
• The board should sustain and, where possible, enhance
the quality of life in the GTA.
• The board should promote a stronger GTA economic unit
with a strong central core by supporting economic
development and job growth in the GTA and retaining
existing businesses .
• The board should have a GTA-wide perspective on
infrastructure issues of an inter-regional nature.
• It should eliminate duplication and reduce overlap in
the existing system by promoting greater cost savings
and efficiencies .
• The board' s mandate and structure should be reviewed at
regular intervals to ensure it is appropriate to the
current circumstances within the GTA.
• Municipalities in the GTA should be the GTSB' s clients .
The assets and liabilities of each member should be
acknowledged and their fair value accounted for.
• Governance structure of the GTSB should be inclusive
and participatory, yet designed to reflect the
principle of representation by population in decision-
making to ensure it is accountable to its membership.
• GTSB' s operational and capital requirements should be
financed primarily by user pay. Costs which are not
covered in this way should be apportioned among the
GTSB' s membership, as appropriate.
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 4 - July 7, 1997
• The GTSB would be permitted to borrow or have access to
Municipal Reserve Funds for financing capital expansion
or maintenance of existing infrastructure .
• The board' s mandate should be clearly defined in
legislation so its relationship to existing municipal
government is clear and understandable .
• Legislation should permit the board' s structure,
mandate and representation to change over time, at the
discretion of the GTSB and/or the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing.
• The board should be able to adapt to any municipal
restructuring which occurs in the GTA.
4 . 0 THE MODELS
4 . 1 The report has identified three potential models for the
structure of the committee, all based on representation
by population.
4 . 2 Model One is that of a Single Purpose Board structured as
a coordinating body, designed to gain consensus on
matters of interest to: all GTA municipalities; to the
provincial or federal government; or, between one or more
municipalities, if they were unable to reach agreement on
an inter-regional servicing issue. The GTSB would:
• provide a discussion forum for responding to matters of
interest to the future well-being of the GTA;
• settle inter-regional matters - either proactively
where the greater well-being of the GTA requires the
issue to be settled more expeditiously, or on the
invitation of one or other of the municipalities; and
• operate GO Transit .
4 . 3 Model Two would see the GTSB as a dual purpose body. It
would build on the discussion and settlement role
outlined in Model One by. adding the role of proactive
strategic infrastructure coordination. The GTSB would
also :
• provide strategic direction on urban settlement
patterns in the GTA and require the efficient use of
existing infrastructure;
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 5 - July 7, 1997
• coordinate infrastructure requirements, beginning with
key growth-related services such as sewer and water,
transit, waste disposal, economic development,
conservation, watershed management and environmental
protection in the GTA;
• set priorities and make decisions on capital
investments for key infrastructure in the GTA; and
• develop a future post-collection waste management
strategy.
4 .4 Model Three would have the board carry out all the
functions outlined in Models One and Two plus assume the
role of owner or operator, or both, of key services in
the GTA. The GTSB would also:
• own and operate key services within the GTA (eg, water
and sewer systems) ; and
• eventually replace one of the two levels of municipal
government .
The Report does not identify the preferred model .
5 . 0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5 . 1 The report presents thirty-three recommendations,
structured around Goals and Objectives, Roles and
Organization.
5 . 2 Under the Goals and Responsibilities section of the
report it is recommended that a GTSB be created and,
where possible, enhance the quality of life in the GTA
when carrying out its responsibilities . The GTSB should
promote a stronger GTA economic unit by supporting and
enhancing policies, programs and initiatives which
promote the GTA as a dynamic, interdependent and vital
economic entity within the provincial, national and
international contexts .
5 . 3 Under the Roles and Responsibilities section of the
report it is recommended that the board carry out four
major roles, being infrastructure coordination,
discussion forum, issue resolution, and service delivery.
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 6 - July 7, 1997
5 . 4 Infrastructure coordination would have the board adopt a
strategy to provide clear direction on efficient use of
infrastructure, urban settlement patterns and the phasing
of growth. It would provide strategic direction on
services and issues including:
• sewer and water;
• inter-regional transit ;
• GO transit;
• inter-regional roads;
• post-collection waste management;
• economic development;
• telecommunications; and
• conservation, watershed and inter-watershed management
issues.
The Board would coordinate decisions on these services to
optimize the use of infrastructure, approve key
infrastructure investments, apportion costs, and
disseminate common information on services and issues .
5 . 5 In the area of Discussion Forum, the board will address
matters of interest to the continued well-being of the
GTA, and liaison with all levels of government .
5 . 6 Under the Issue Forum sectiop, the board will settle
matters related to inter-regional issues or services when
there is no consensus . The board will implement
decisions and apportion costs.
5 . 7 On the Service Delivery agenda the board will provide a
long-term post-collection waste management strategy for
the GTA as well as operate GO Transit .
5 . 8 Organization of the GTSB is to be based on a statutory
corporation made up of all lower-tier, upper-tier, and
single-tier municipalities in the GTA and there should be
no provision for municipalities to opt out . This issue
will be discussed in Section 11 of this report .
5 . 9 The GTSB will consist of three standing committees; an
Executive Committee, an Urban Issues Advisory Committee,
and a Rural Issues Advisory Committee . Representation on
the initial Executive Committee will be made up of the
Mayor and thirteen councillors from the City of Toronto,
the Regional Chair and two Mayors from the Region of
Durham, the Regional Chair and one Mayor from the Region
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 7 - July 7, 1997
of Halton, the Chair and three Mayors from the Region of
York, and the Regional Chair, three Mayors, and a
councillor from the Region of Peel, for a total
membership of twenty-eight . When GO Transit issues are
on the agenda the Executive Committee will be expanded to
include three members from the Region of Hamilton-
Wentworth.
5 . 10 The Chair of the GTSB shall also chair the Executive
Committee and the initial chair should be appointed by
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with all
subsequent chairs being appointed by the Executive
Committee.
6 . 0 CLARINGTON' S POSITION PAPER
6 .1 On April 17, 1997, the Municipality of Clarington
approved a position paper to be forwarded to the Special
Adviser to the Minister regarding the review of the
proposed GTSB. In that paper, Clarington presented a
number of suggestions to be considered by Mr. Farrow
prior to the writing of his report .
6 . 2 The Clarington submission supported the retention of the
Regional level of government as the primary service
delivery vehicle for the majoX infrastructure
requirements of the GTA, and that the GTSB should
generally be limited to roles of strategic planning,
coordination and dispute resolution, and should not, in
form or function, be perceived as another level of
government . Under Recommendation Four of the report, the
initial mandate of the board meets the recommendations
put forth by Clarington. However, although the
discussion paper that preceded the report stated that the
GTSB would not be another level of government, Model
Three of the report clearly states that "the GTSB would
also eventually replace one of the two levels of
municipal government" .
6 .3 Clarington' s recommendations pertaining to the board' s
operation of GO Transit, and the coordination of the
overall transit service within the GTA, have been
accepted in the report . However, the municipality' s
recommendation that the GTSB be given a limited role in
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 8 - July 7, 1997
"the management or delivery of services such as arterial
roads, water and sewer systems, and waste management" has
been ignored. The report identifies these areas as part
of the GTSB Infrastructure Coordination Strategy,
including "own or operate key services in the GTA" , (eg,
water and sewer systems) plus the power of borrowing to
finance these services.
6 .4 In the area of membership of the GTSB, Clarington
recommended that it should be based on equal
representation from each Region and the Metro Toronto
Area. Upon reviewing the report, it should be noted that
membership of the powerful Executive Committee is far
from based on equal representation of the existing
regions, but based on the principle of representation by
population.
6 . 5 Clarington went on to recommend that the GTSB should have
no authority to tax directly and administrative costs
should be shared on the same basis as membership from
each region. The report states that although the board
would initially have no direct taxing powers, the
administrative costs of the board would be apportioned
among the members of the GTSB on a per capita basis
unless a 2/3 VOTE OF THE EXECUTIVE DETERMINES ANOTHER
FORMULA IS MORE APPROPRIATE. • The Province would offer
staff resources to work on policy related to the
development of strategy for a period of eighteen months
at no cost .
6 . 6 It is important to note that Recommendation Twenty Eight
states, "The cost of all inter-regional, growth-related
services which the GTSB is responsible for should be
based on the principles of 'user-pay' and balanced
budget. When the GTSB borrows capital it should follow
the same rules as municipalities do . If, however, user
pay does not cover the costs and a deficit occurs, a
residual charge to the member municipalities should be
apportioned on an equitable basis, 'AS DETERMINED BY THE
EXECUTIVE' . "
6 . 7 Finally, the Clarington submission stated, "It must be
made clear to municipalities that the introduction of the
GTSB will not result in forced amalgamations or other
jurisdictional changes within the GTA" . Although the
report is virtually silent on this issue, Recommendation
Nineteen of the report states, "Key decisions should
require 2/3 vote of the Executive. Decisions could
include. . . . . .changes to an existing urban settlement
boundary or to the phasing of significant growth. " These
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 9 - July 7 , 1997
sections of the report must be defined more clearly and
Recommendation Fifteen states that "the board should
settle inter-municipal issues or services, either
proactively where the greater well-being of the GTA
requires the matter to be settled in an expeditious
manner or on invitation of one or more municipality. "
7 . 0 REVIEW OF THE REPORT
7 . 1 A meaningful review of Mr. Farrow' s report cannot be made
without revisiting the numerous reports and responses to
reports that have centred around the GTA over the past
two years . The recent actions of the present Provincial
government in the area of "the megacity" must also be
closely scrutinized in interpreting the sometimes vague
recommendations surrounding the structuring of the GTSB
and its proposed mandate . Given the proposed make up of
the very powerful Executive Committee, which sees fifty
percent of its membership coming from Toronto, with
obvious representation from both Oshawa and Mississauga,
one of the papers that should be looked at closely is the
report entitled "Moving Forward Together" , the response
to the Golden Report that was presented by the mayors of
Toronto, North York, Mississauga, and Oshawa in January
of 1996 . This submission clearly separated the urban
municipalities from the rural• municipalities in the GTA
and was looked upon as directing the rural areas to a
secondary role in the GTA. The opinions of that report
toward the rural municipalities of the GTA could very
well be a preview of the fate of the rural municipalities
in any future GTSB.
7 .2 It may be argued that the rural municipalities receive
protection from the powerful Executive Committee by way
of the formation of a Rural Issues Advisory Committee
that would address rural issues. This committee,
together with a committee to address urban issues,
would be statutory, as would be the Executive Committee .
However, the report also recommends that the statute
permits the mandate and representation to change at the
discretion of the GTSB or the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing. Providing the opportunity for a
statutory corporation with such wide discretionary
powers to make fundamental changes to its mandate without
consultation and legislative changes clearly would not
be in the best interests of the smaller, rural
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 10 - July 7 , 1997
municipalities . In addition, Recommendation Twenty-One
states that municipalities can either sit on the Urban
Committee or the Rural Committee. This is not acceptable
to the fringe municipalities such as Clarington, which
clearly would be interested in both urban and rural
issues .
8 . 0 REPRESENTATION
8 . 1 Given the fact that the Region of Durham will only have
its Chair and two mayors on the GTSB Executive Committee,
it is a fair assumption that the Municipality of
Clarington will not have direct representation on this
powerful committee. That being the case, it would result
in the Clarington ratepayers paying for services over
which their elected officials will have no direct control
or ability to contain cost, and for which there is little
or no direct benefit to Clarington.
9 . 0 AMALGAMATION
9 . 1 As stated in section 6 . 7 above, the report is silent on
the question of forced amalgamation within the proposed
GTSB structure. However, it is clear that the Executive
Committee will have the authority to settle inter-
municipal issues on invitatiop of one or more
municipalities. This may imply that the GTSB will
eventually be given authority to make decisions on
boundary issues. One thing is clear. The report states
that, "there should be no provision for municipalities to
opt out of membership" of the GTSB.
9 .2 once again, upon consideration of the future role of both
the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington
within the proposed GTSB structure, the actions of the
present Provincial government should be reviewed. Recent
legislation has made it clear that the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing is committed to the
reduction of the number of levels of municipal government
as well as the reduction of the number of municipalities
within those levels .
9 . 3 With the ability to change its mandate over time,
(Recommendation Thirty-One of the report) without
legislative authority, the Province is transferring an
enormous amount of authority to the GTSB with no limits .
I
REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 11 - July 7, 1997
9 . 4 On June 19 , 1997, the Toronto Star, in reporting on the
Farrow Report, quoted the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, The Hon. Al Leach, as saying, "This is a
transition period. The various regions within the GTA
are at different stages of growth. But, I think
that . . . .whether that' s three, five or ten years, the
Board will become the regional government and you' ll see
changes in the other levels of government" .
9 . 5 Considering all of the above, municipalities the size of
Clarington should not have a high comfort level in
considering its future under the proposed structure of
the GTSB.
10 . 0 CLARINGTON'S UNIQUE TAXATION POSITION
10 . 1 The Municipality of Clarington is presently in a unique
position within the Region of Durham and the GTA.
Although Clarington is part of the GTA, through its
membership within the Region of Durham, regional taxes
are collected on behalf of Durham, yet educational taxes
are collected on behalf of the Northumberland School
Board.
10 .2 At this point, the Province is still exploring two
options in regards to the quegtion of pooling of
education taxes . Firstly, educational support could be
charged to the commercial/industrial tax base and the
residential tax base on a pooling formula, either GTA
wide or Region wide. Secondly, there could be a uniform
tax rate across the Province for educational purposes.
If pooling were arranged within the Region of Durham, or
the GTA, for educational purposes, the redirection of the
Clarington tax dollar would leave a significant
deficiency in the Northumberland education support .
10 .3 Such a move from Northumberland to either Durham or the
GTA in regards to educational taxes could see a major
increase in costs to either the industrial/commercial or
residential ratepayer, depending on what route the
Province decides to follow for educational taxes . The
Province is suggesting that there will still be a
municipal component of the commercial/industrial base.
We are uncertain how this will be changed from the
current method. However, it would seem that in regards
to the cost of education, being forced into a GTA
relationship would not be good news for the Clarington
taxpayer.
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 12 - July 7, 1997
11 . 0 CLARINGTON' S OPTIONS
As the GTSB takes on the many responsibilities, eg, sewer
and water, that are now provided by the Region of Durham
and given the Minister has suggested that the board will
become the regional government, it would appear the
future demise of the Region would be inevitable .
11 . 1 At this point in time, it is not at all clear as to
whether municipalities such as Clarington have any choice
of continuing its membership in the Region of Durham and
the GTA. Clearly, the relationship between Clarington
and Durham has been a successful one since the Town of
Newcastle was incorporated by the Regional Municipality
of Durham in 1973 . After due consideration, and clear
indication from the residents of the municipality, should
Clarington wish to bow out of the new GTSB structure, it
would mean leaving the Region of Durham, and would
require an amendment to the Regional Municipality of
Durham Act . This, of course, would have to be done prior
to the birth of the GTSB, which is slated for January,
1998 .
11 . 2 The usual way in which the Regional Municipality of
Durham Act is amended is by a Government Bill introduced
by the Minister of Municipal 'Affairs and Housing.
However, the name of the Municipality was changed by an
amendment to the Durham Act . The amendment was contained
in a private member' s bill to amend a public act. The
local MPP introduced the bill, allowing a fast-tracking
of the amendment .
11 . 3 Before Council gives any consideration to the proposal of
opting out of the GTSB, it should receive the final
report from staff pointing out the ramifications of such
a decision.
11 .4 Upon receiving such information, Council may consider
taking the issue to Public Hearings and even placing the
question on the ballot in the upcoming municipal
elections .
11 . 5 All of the above, of course, would either have to be done
in a timely manner, or, with the agreement of the
Province, following the establishment of the GTSB, in
spite of the "no opting-out clause" , as stated in the
GTSB report .
REPORT ADMIN. 36-97 - 13 - July 7, 1997
12 . 0 RECOMMENDATIONS
12 . 1 As directed under Resolution #GPA-43-96, staff will
continue to study and report back as soon as possible
following the summer recess on the impact of leaving the
GTA.
12 . 2 As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is
seeking comment on the Farrow report by July 31, 1997,
that the Minister be requested to give the Municipality
of Clarington and the other fringe municipalities of the
GTA, twelve months grace, from the time the legislation
is passed to establish the GTSB, to opt out of the GTA,
if they so choose.
Respectfully submitted,
W.H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Offic r
Attachment #t
9 January 22, 1996
O.P.& A. Minutes
Mayor Hamre chaired this portion of the meeting.
ADMINISTRAHON
1996 Budget Resolution IIGPA-41-96
Restraint
Program - Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Hanna
Fee Adjustments
THAT Report ADMIN-2-96 be received;
THAT the Attachments to ADMIN-2-96 be approved for implementation effective
February 1, 1996, with the exception of
the
budget deliberations onAttach Attachment #2 to Report sADMIN-2-96r and for to 1996
THAT the appropriate By-laws be forwarded to Council to effect those fees and
service charges that are governed by BY-la .
,CARRIED"
GTA Task Force Resolution #GPA-42-96
Report - Implications
Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Hanna
to Clarington
THAT the Chief Administrative Officer and appropriate staff investigate and report
on the implications that the GTA Task Force ll have on the Municipality
of Clarington as per the Purchasing By-law, FORTHWITH.
'"CARRIED'
GTA Task Force Resolution #GPA-43-96
Report - Implications
of Clarington Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski
Withdrawing
THAT the Chief Administrative Officer review and report gf the financial
implications of the Municipality of Clarington withdrawing from the Greater
Toronto Area in light of the recommendations contained in the GTA Task Force
Report, FORTHWITH.
"CARRIED"
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Resolution #GPA-44-96
Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Elliott
THAT the delegation of Mr. Don Welsh be received with appreciation and he be
advised that the Municipality will continue to work together with the Clarington
Older Adult Association.
"CARRIED"
• Attachment "C" to Report
ADMIH. 8-98
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
XM XM AKMO"3tkkx
REPORT
Meeting: File# �'� CT �
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Res. # C:,Pq- S S(9-9 7
Date:
October 6, 1997 By-Law#
Report#: File#:
Subject: ADMIN-41-97
rT4R/STA Ontinnc for the Munioipali{y of Claringtnn
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . THAT Report ADMIN-41-97 be received for information and discussion, and
2. THAT the Honourable Al Leach, M.P.P. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing be requested to reply forthwith to the Municipality of Clarington's request
for a twelve months grace period from the time the legislation is passed to opt out
of the GTA and the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB), and
3. THAT the Mayor join with the other Rural Mayors of the Region of Durham in
requesting an immediate meeting with the Minister, and
4. THAT if the Province of Ontario DOES NOT allow the fringe Municipalities in the
Municipalities of the GTA any time to decide on their membership in the
GTA/GTSB, based on the figures in this report, Council must seriously consider
requesting to leave the GTA immediately, and
5. THAT the Region of Durham, the County of Northumberland, Mr. John O'Toole
M.P.P.,the Townships of Scugog, Uxb idge and Brock, the Peterborough County
Board of Education and the Northumberland Clarington Board of Education and
the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington R.C.S.S.B. be provided a
copy of this report.
ADMIN-41-97 Page 2
BACKGROUND:
1.0 The Cost of Leaving the Region of Durham, GTA and the GTSB
1 .1 On July 7 Council considered report ADMIN-36-97 and thereby endorsed its
previous resolution to explore the costs associated with the Municipality of
Clarington leaving the GTA. If the decision is to leave the GTA the Municipality
is forced to leave the Region of Durham and have the services they provide
delivered by Clarington directly, by contracting out services, or by other levels of
government.
1.2 The report Admin-36-97 requested that the fringe Municipalities of the GTA be
given the benefit of twelve months grace from the time the legislation is passed
to opt out of the GTA and the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB).
1 .3 In order to completely assess the financial impact of the Municipality leaving the
Region of Durham, extensive financial analysis would be required. The analysis
would be required to assess the impact of development charges currently
collected by the Region, lost economies of scale, debt and borrowing
implications, administrative cost allocation, as well as many other unanticipated
or hidden costs. This exercise can not be completed in the time frame allowed,
and depending on the Provincial decision, it may not be necessary. The cost
references in this report are therefore very preliminary and are prepared on an
"overall" perspective for information purposes only. It is recommended that
further detailed studies be undertaken only if the Provincial decision is to allow
separation from the GTA.
2.0 Region of Durham Report on the Estimated Impacts of "WHO DOES WHAT"
2.1 The report prepared by the Region of Durham #97-F-60 Estimated Impacts On
The Region From The August 6, 1997"Who Does What" Provincial Announcement
is attached for reference (Attachment #1). The Region report clearly anticipates
a "best case scenario" of a net annual impact of $35.3 million (or $17.9 million
without considering the Municipal Support Grant eliminations for all area
municipalities) from the Provincial downloading. This calculation is an estimate
based on the announced transfer of functions to municipalities and is net of the
education tax room (value on the tax bill created by removing the education tax)
identified by the Province in the August 6 announcements. It has adjusted for the
Region wide value for the loss of Provincial grants and subsidies.
2.2 The Region report suggests that the 1998 and future tax bills will be
approximately 75% related to Mega City, GO Transit and GTSB costs. It is not
possible to determine the value that will be apportioned to the Municipality of
Clarington until the Region has all the final data and legislative regulations
and guidelines, however H it were to be based on the current 11%
apportionment applied to the $17.9 million to 21 .1 million the impact would
'-be approximately $1.9 million to 2.3 million�additi nal tax dollars for
ADMIN 41 97 Pane 3
Regional purposes, on the residents of Clarington. If this $1 .9 million is added
to the $11.4 million currently paid to the Region through the tax levy, the
impact is a total of $13.5 million (an increase of 17 to 21% on the Region
portion of the tax bill). If this is added to the $1.2 Municipal Support Grant
which is proposed to be eliminated in 1998, the total impact for that year alone
will be at least $3.1 million in total. This combination of lost revenue and
increased cost will cause a tax increase equivalent to approximately 15%
unless drastic cuts to services are imposed to achieve expenditure
reductions. The average tax bill in Clarington is $2,292 which is made up of
$1,404 Education, $444 Region and $444 for Municipal tax. A 15% increase
would make this tax bill approximately$2,442 or approximately$150 more without-
considering any increase on the education portion of the tax bill. Again, caution
should be exercised in reference to these numbers as there have been no
confirmation of any numbers by the Province.
2.3 The confusion is further compounded by uncertainty whether the Provincial
education relief referred to in the Region's calculations has adjusted for Clarington
being part of the Northumberland Board of Education. The issue of education tax
support is explored further in the following section of this report.
2.4 Report TR-76-97 should be read in association with this report. Report TR-76-97
deals with the resolution received at the Council meeting of July 7, 1997 by
resolution#C-524-97. It references the City of Toronto's recommendation to have
social assistance and housing costs in Toronto shared in the GTA through the
GTSB. It is questionable whether the full impact of these costs were included in
the Provincial numbers and therefore these costs may increase the impact
identified in the Region's analysis.
2.5 Much of the difficulty in preparing any analysis of the impact is the uncertainty of
the numbers. The Provincial announcements contain a caution or a disclaimer
that the numbers should not be used for analysis because the ultimate method
of allocation may vary. There are no details of the methodologies used or what
is included or excluded in the numbers and therefore it is impossible to assess
or understand the true impact. The Region, in its report, references the same
difficulty.
3.0 Education Tax Support/Assessment Reform
3.1 The Municipality of Clarington is in a unique situation within the Region of Durham
in that the education tax support is to the Peterborough County Board of
Education and the Northumberland Clarington Board of Education and the
Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington Roman Catholic Separate
School Board, while the upper tier tax support is to the Region of Durham. All
other area Municipalities support the Durham School Boards. This may be one
additional reason that affiliation with the Northumberland County is a reasonable
request for Clarington.
ADMIN-41-97 Page 4
3.2 The Province has not dealt with Education reform legislation and, until such time,
it is not possible to determine the exact relief on the tax bill. The numbers used
to date are only estimates by the Province. Once this element is known,
municipalities will be able to calculate the impact of adding the cost of
downloaded services in place of the education portion of the local tax bill.
3.3 The Province was examining two proposals with respect to the funding of
education; one method was a uniform mill rate which would be applied Province
wide, and the second was a value which represents 50%of the locally determined
existing cost of education. The second option appears to be similar to the current
status quo to the extent that the local board costs are collected Iocally.The
preliminary analysis by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing shows that
there would be increased costs under a Province wide mill rate, and if some
version of the status quo remains, staff feel that the potential exists for the pooling,
of education costs across the GTA. It is estimated that any pooling scenario will
result in increased costs for the Municipality of Clarington, and may be a
significant loss to the Northumberland education tax support if Clarington is-
pooled into the GTA base. As stated above, it is unclear at this point whether the
Provincial numbers issued to the Region for education tax relief to compensate
for downloading have adjusted for Clarington being part of the Northumberland
Board of Education. The Province was contacted and although they could not
confirm whether the numbers released on August 6 were adjusted, they did
confirm that they were aware of the education tax situation in Clarington.
3.4 Another potential impact to the property tax bill may come from the assessment
reform implications under Bill 106. It is possible that the Municipality of Clarington
will share in the negative impact of reduced assessment for the large commercial
enterprises such as G.M. If this is the conclusion, it may benefit the commercial
ratepayers of Clarington to be out of the Region of Durham. The final implications
of these changes will not be known until the assessment changes have been
processed in early 1998.
4.0 Options [Pros and Cons]
4.1 If the Province decides that the fringe Municipalities are not to be given optional
participation in the GTA and the GTSB, the Municipality of Clarington will have no
choice in the matter.
4.2 The Municipality of Clarington is on record as recommending the status quo with
some co-ordination of services across the GTA. However, if the Province
legislates the GTSB and allows the Municipality to opt out of the GTA, the
following are the options that Staff feel the Municipality of Clarington is facing:
1204
ADMIN 41-97 Page 5
A) Separated City : this would be a similar situation to the City of
Peterborough .which essentially provides all the services required. Given
the direction of the Province to reduce the number of municipalities and
reduce duplication, this is not considered to be an option that would be
well received by the Province.
B) Council could consider becoming part of the County of
Northumberland and explore the possibility of amalgamation and/or
cost service sharing with neighbouring municipalities: this option
would serve to satisfy the Provincial directive and at the same time would
allow the Municipality to pay for the upper tier services through the County
levy. This option has been discussed on a preliminary basis only, with the
CAO of Northumberland County,who was receptive to further investigation
without any firm commitment until the matter was discussed with the
County Council Members.
B.1) If Council makes the decision to leave the GTA staff are suggesting
that the Municipality should request up to the three year term of the next
Council in order to sort out the funding and other details to fully provide
the services currently provided by the Region of Durham.
B.2) If the direction from Council was to become part of the
Northumberland County they may wish to investigate whether police
services could be provided by the County level for all the municipalities
within its jurisdiction. If the County of Northumberland were to consider
providing Police services on a county wide basis, it would eliminate the
current situation of independently funded Police services for Port Hope and
Cobourg. This move would also be in keeping with the Provincial directive.
B.3) If out of the GTA Council might explore the amalgamation with one
of the neighbouring municipalities and/or cost sharing and shared services
over the next few years. This option may benefit Municipalities involved in
the following manner:
• Reducing overall exposure to increased costs levied through the
GTSB to municipalities who have virtually no representation on the
board.
• The history and issues facing neighbouring rural municipalities is
similar.
• The urban/rural mix of most neighbouring communities is similar
which may allow more efficient combined service delivery on such
areas as roads.
•. A combined tax base may allow for an overall lower tax levy (this is
an estimate and will not be able to be verified because of actual
value assessment and WDW responsibility shifts)
• Given the lean Staff complement within the Municipality of
Clarington, it may be reasonable to absorb existing Staff of any
municipality that is willing to consider this option, without any job
losses, except through normal attrition.
ADMIN-41-97 Page 6
6.4) Potential negative impacts of an amalgamation may include the
following:
• There may be issues such as water and sewer servicing, additional
roads capital repairs etc, that impact the Municipality of Clarington
( this requires more analysis to be verified)
• The loss of some of the Region benefits which will no longer be
available such as their AAA bond rating, economies of scale, and
uniform water and sewer rates, may be a negative impact.
5.0 Region of Durham - Services Currently Provided
5.1 The Region of Durham 1997 budget net levy is $103,483,669. This levy is
apportioned to the eight area municipalities, and Clarington's share is 11% at
$11,457,712. The specific apportionment for each of the Municipalities is
identified on the following table:
INunicipaiity 9tz Re�jTQn S 1947 A
Levy
Oshawa 28.89 29,893,327
Pickering 20.30 21,009,254
Whitby 16.34 16,915,441
Ajax 13.31 13,774,711
Clarington 11.07 11,459,782-
Scugog 3.97 4,109,336
Uxbridge 3.82 3,947,902
Brock 2.30 2,373,916 _
TOTAL LEVY 100.00 103,483,669
5.2 The cost of Water and Sewer operations and capital ($95,829,800) is not included
in the levy. These costs are financed by a combination of user revenue,
Development Charges, debentures and contributions from York.
5.3 The $11 million annual apportionment provides services to the Municipality of
Clarington in the following proportions, (based on 11% of each departmental
budget)
1206
ADMIN 41 97 Pape 7
i81 ) ud Glartnon$ttaXe
Major Expenditure Function
Police 54,599,304 6,046,327
Health & Social Services 27,422,309 3,036,746
Roads- Capital &Operation 16,694,200 1,848,716
Finance 7,950,236 880,409
Agencies (Child.Aid/Con.Au) 4,136,280 458,052
Planning 2,195,136 243,089
Non-Departmental & Reg.Aff. 1,592,993 176,408
Contributions to Res.Funds 553,531 61,298
SUB-TOTAL 115,143,989 12,751,045
Solid Waste 1,700,000 188,258
Non Program Financing (13,360,320) (1,479,522)
Total Regional Levy 103,483,669 11,459,782
Add back Financing -will not be available 1,479.522
TOTAL For SERVICES In REGIONAL LEVY 12,939,303.
5.4 The above allocation is based on the 11% apportionment value applied to the
total budget for that function. In most cases this will not be the exact cost to
replace this service. For example; the cost of Health and Social Services of$27
million allocated on an 11% share results in Clarington paying $10 million,
whereas if the cost were based on a caseload allocation the cost may be less (the
1995 Clarington caseload was 8.5% of the total; 8.5% of the total cost of $27
million is $2.3 million). This is based on the assumption that the cost is evenly
attributed per case. The opposite may be true for capital costs associated with
water and sewer capital, where it is estimated that Clarington has benefited from
Regional cost sharing.
6.0 Cost Estimates for Major Services to be Provided by Clarington
6.1 In order to assess the preliminary capital and maintenance costs that the
Municipality might face on leaving the' Region of Durham the major service
categories were defined as follows:
a. Roads
b. Water and Sewer
c. Police
d. Health and Social Services
e. Solid Waste
1 x :17
ADMIN-41-97 Paoe 8
Note: a. &b. The firm of Totten Sims Hubicki were asked to prepare an analysis of the Water and
Sewer infrastructure and related costs and assist Public Works in the Roads cost assessment.
This is shown as Attachment#2. (under separate cover)
c.d.e. The costs associated with Police, Health and Social Services and Solid Waste are
estimates based on information provided to Staff from the Region of Durham. These costs
and allocation formulas are further explored below.
6.2 The options for service delivery of major categories are presented in the following
table. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the numbers as they are
estimations only and until detailed impact studies are conducted they are not
verifiable. Until the Province confirms its intention to allow the Municipality to opt
out of the GTA, it would not be recommended to expend funds and time to
determine costs that may not be realized.
Sa1Ar1Ce l3egtoh Cori Castt'ietaYatk G+as[7Saeumpflaas OpitallsIor�...... Daltunrytfnur
i99T.Lfrvtr toAcfilal oftheGFA
Police 6,046,327 5,511,345' Based on OPP costs Interim-Purchase from Region.
$2521household for
or Northumberland And get OPP to quote on providing If
or Region cost is high.
7,211,000 Per Durham Regional
Police estimate of Actual Ultimately may request County of
Used in (Includes administration Northumberland to provide.
total costs)
Health& 3,036,746 2,330,895 1995 state Clarington Is' Northumberland provides Health
Social 8.5%of caseload Services;Health Unit in Port Hope
Service
Roads 1,848,716 1,278,565 T.S.H.estimates for Take over all Regional Roads in
+ Operations Clarington&request Dev.Charge
1,000,OOO Capital-per T.S.H. Reserve$from Region.
est(range 1M to 1.3
Million)
Waste 1,320,000 1,320,000 Cost per tonne to tip by Northumberland currently provides
Region,not expected to-- both collection and delivery.
@ 63./tonne $63.tonne change.No major Impact Canadian Waste to continue Transfer
expected. Station proposal for waste.
Water 0 0 Per T.S.H.-Operations Possible significant future costs for
/Sewer net of recoveries capital facilities for Water&Sewer,
however Development Charges would
Capital-W 131,000`• 1,100,ODD Capital =tax levy portion be continue to be collected.
Cap'italS 135,000" 1,800,000 estimate
TOTALS 12,517,789 14,340,805 Estimated cost for major services
NET COST 1,823,016 Additional Cost for Clarington
7
LESS (1,300,000) Savings if Admin. Services not Required (Finance etc.)
(1,479,522) Non Program Financing add back to cost
SAVINGS ( 956,506) TOTAL PRELIMINARY SAVINGS ESTIMATE
"Estimated based on tax levy estimated by Totten Sims Hubidd apportioned over Region Water&Sewer Users.
- 1208
ADMIN-41-97 Paoe 9
6.3 Administrative type functions which are currently part of the Region budget such
as, planning, finance & administration, agencies, and other non-departmental
functions have not been built into the cost impact above. The Municipality of
Clarington is apportioned approximately $1.8 million for these functions through
the general levy. Some of the costs, such as those associated with conservation
authorities and other agencies, are not expected to increase and have therefore
not been added to either the cost or the savings projected any more than they will
as part of the Region levy. It is difficult to assign costs and to assess the
potential increased internal impact to Clarington for increased workload if some
of these functions were to be taken back at the lower tier, therefore any impact
will be absorbed or addressed through the annual budget process. Although the
savings may be more or less than the "ball park" estimate above, it is anticipated
that the increased requirements for staff and additional overhead costs to
Clarington as a result of taking on the additional responsibilities will not outweigh
the savings that are to be achieved.
6.4 Water and Sewer costs are estimated by Totten Sims Hubicki based on the
Regional documents provided and discussions with the Regional staff. The
attachment provides more details on the cost analysis. The true operations
impact is difficult to assess because the Region revenues are based on a flat rate
user fee across the Region. The user fee may go up if the function is contained
within Clarington based on the general principle that the operation of the facility
will be financed by a smaller number of ratepayers.
6.5 If Clarington were to leave the GTA, the capital infrastructure costs for future water
and sewer facilities are expected to be significant since these costs also can be
spread over a large number of ratepayers when they are financed through the
Region of Durham. The capital for water and sewer has been estimated based
on the Clarington related capital expenditures as determined by Totten Sims
Hubicki calculated over the total water connections in the Region and then
applied to Clarington users. The calculations show a significant savings to
Clarington from the economies of scale provided by the total Regional user base.
However, the significance of the capital decisions resting with Council rather than
with the GTSB in terms of when a facility will be built, can not be overlooked. If
the GTSB is to decide on whether afacility is built in Clarington or in Toronto, with
no voice on the board, the decision will not likely favour the Municipality.
Development Charges would continue to be collected at the local level for the
proposed future capital projects.
6.6 The Regional Official Plan would no longer be applicable if Clarington leaves the
Region of Durham. The Director of Planning has advised that the approval
process and direction on Official Plan matters would be dealt with directly by the
Province. This process would eliminate some costs associated with the Regional
Planning function but it will not necessarily alleviate the time constraints
associated with the approval and response time for planning issues.
6.7 The impact of solid waste services for Clarington outside of the GTA, is not
anticipated to have a severe impact on Clarington particularly in light of the
continued investigation with Canadian Waste Inc. regarding the purchase of a site
for a waste transfer station within the Municipality._ It is anticipated that a report
on this issue will be forthcoming in the near future which will make final
r000m mend ationsgand update the previously IppTved agreement details.
ADMIN-41-97 Page 10
The Region of Durham has no long range plan in place at present to deal with
waste. In addition it is anticipated that within the next five to ten years the existing
reserve fund, which heavily subsidizes waste and recycling, will be depleted
resulting in a significant increase in the tipping fees. Consequently it appears that
it may be in the Municipality's best interest to consider independence from the
Region on waste issues. The recycling component of the waste function has not
been fully explored and alternate arrangements will be explored should the
approval be given to leave the Region of Durham.
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 It is clear that the status quo would be the preferred option for the Municipality of
Clarington because many of the services provided by the Region are on a more
efficient basis particularly those associated with large capital outlay for
construction projects and facilities. At the same time there are a number of costs
such as administration etc that are overpaid for by the area municipalities and
there is some duplication of functions between the two levels of government.
7.2 The analysis is not conclusive because many of the costs are difficult to apportion
or assess, however H the best case scenario is a"break even" or even an increase
in the cost to provide major services, the cost will be much less than that which
will be downloaded through the GTSB to the Region of Durham and levied
through the Regional levy to the residents of Clarington.
7.3 If Council decides that the best option for service delivery is for Clarington to
become part of the County of Northumberland, as the largest urban centre it will
have a significant voice in future decisions and it will continue to be accountable
and accessible to the citizens of the Municipality of Clarington. If the studies
conclude that it is not in the best interests of the Municipality to become part of
the County structure, further negotiations with the Province can take place at that
time. If Council decides to leave the GTA, and therefore the Region of Durham,
and not to become part of the Northumberland County further negotiations with
the Province can take place at that time.
7.4 The G.T.A. and GTSB would not benefit financially from the Municipality of
Clarington remaining within its boundaries because of the increasing service
demands, rapid growth, water and sewer expansion requirements, and its largely
rural road network. Clarington has virtually no common issues with the large
urban developments to the west and they would find it difficult to effectively
address the rural community problems and complexities.
7.5 If the Province decides not to allow the Municipality one year to decide on its
membership in the GTSB, it would therefore seem that it may be in the best
interest of all concerned to allow the Municipality of Clarington to leave the GTA
and the Region of Durham immediately. This is the decision that Council will
have to consider once the Province has responded to the request put forward by
the Municipality of Clarington.
ADMIN-41-97 Paoe 11
Respectively Submitted, Reviewed by,
Marano, W.H. Stockwell,
Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer
P. Barri erk
S.S. Vo�ctor of Works
WHS IMAM/pp
1211
yu y
ATTACHMENT #1
$FP 1 0 1997 SECTION 4
The Regional Municipality Of Durham
ADDENDUM TO THE TWELFTH
REPORT OF THE FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
To The Council Of The Region of Durham
September 10, 1997
Members of Council:
The Finance & Administration Committee presents an ADDENDUM to the TWELFTH
Report and respectfully recommends as follows:
6. REPORT#97-F-60 (REVISED) OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE
REGARDING THE ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON THE REGION FROM THE
See AUGUST 6, 1997 "WHO DOES WHAT" PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Attached
Pages RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
53.1 - 66
WHEREAS on August 6, 1997, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing released an impact analysis which provided the estimated
changes in municipal costs and revenues that will result from the Who
Does What package but also cautioned that the numbers 'should not be
used to estimate over-all impacts on municipalities'; and
WHEREAS on August 21, 1997, Bill 152 the Services Improvement Act, to
provide new municipal funding responsibilities related to the Who Does
What package, received first reading by the Provincial Legislature; and
WHEREAS the Regional Council of Durham strongly objects to the lack of
accountability for Regional taxpayers created by the downloading of the
funding responsibility for certain services and the pooling of service costs
across the GTA municipalities without any 'say' in the management,
delivery or scope of these services; and
403
f -2-
WHEREAS the Regional Council of Durham has serious concerns
regarding the uncertainty of Provincial estimates; the lack of Provincial
direction regarding services to be downloaded; and, the lack of
information regarding the Provincial transitional funding for interim
property tax relief with a proposed implementation date of January 1,
1998; and
WHEREAS the Region of Durham has already adapted to successive
significant reductions in Provincial funding transfers over recent years
and the Province has promised that actions taken at Queen's Park would
not have an adverse impact on property taxpayers; and
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario expressed its commitment to ensure a
fair and equitable property tax system across Ontario, and given the
acknowledged difficulties with residential undertaxation in Metro Toronto,
the Region of Durham strongly objects to cost sharing with residential
taxpayers of Metro Toronto; and
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Province defer its plans to download costs to
the municipal sector until the Ontario Fair Assessment system is fully
implemented and its impacts known to all municipalities.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if the Province proceeds with
the download of costs to the municipal sector that:
i) the Province honour its commitment of no increases in property
taxes-by providing sufficient funding to offset any additional costs
to each individual municipality;
ii) the distribution of GO Transit costs across the GTA municipalities
be based on an equitable balanced formula that takes into account
service levels, system wide benefits and costs, capital expansion
and benefits to Metro Toronto businesses;
iii) any pooled downloaded costs only include the costs related to a
mutually agreed level of service in order to exclude the cost
differential associated with Metro Toronto's higher level of service;
and
iv) the Province immediately release all relevant information to
municipalities and property taxpayers to validate the Provincial
assertion that the transfer of services will ease the burden on
property taxes.
404
- 1213
t. - 3 -
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Regional Chair express
these concerns to the Premier of Ontario directly by letter with a copy of
that letter and Report#97-F-60 (Revised) on the Commissioner of
Finance be forwarded to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing; the Minister of Community and Social Services;
Durham M.P.P:s, the eight local area municipalities; the four local Boards
of Education; the Local Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce; the
Durham Region Manufacturers Association; the Durham Chapter of the
Urban Development Institute; the Oshawa-Durham Homebuilders
Association;the Durham Labour Council and the Durham Region
Federation of Agriculture.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Arthurs, Chair
405
1214
r SECTION 4
The Regional Municipality Of Durham
ADDENDUM TO THE TWELFTH
REPORT OF THE FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
To The Council Of The Region of Durham
September 10, 1997
Members of Council:
The Finance & Administration Committee presents an ADDENDUM to the TWELFTH
Report and respectfully recommends as follows:
6. REPORT#97-F-60 (REVISED) OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE
REGARDING THE ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON THE REGION FROM THE
See AUGUST 6, 1997 "WHO DOES WHAT" PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Attached
Pages RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
53.1 - 66
WHEREAS on August 6, 1997, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing released an impact analysis which provided the estimated
changes in municipal costs and revenues that will result from the Who
Does What package but also cautioned that the numbers 'should.not be
used to estimate over-all impacts on municipalities'; and
WHEREAS on August 21, 1997, Bill 152 the Services Improvement Act, to
provide new municipal funding responsibilities related to the Who Does
What package, received first reading by the Provincial Legislature; and
WHEREAS the Regional Council of Durham strongly objects to the lack of
accountability for Regional taxpayers created by the downloading of the
funding responsibility for certain services and the pooling of service costs
across the GTA municipalities without any *say' in the management,
delivery or scope of these services; and
y
403
1215
f -2-
WHEREAS the Regional Council of Durham has serious concerns
regarding the uncertainty of Provincial estimates; the lack of Provincial
direction regarding services to be downloaded; and, the lack of
information regarding the Provincial transitional funding for interim
property tax relief with a proposed implementation date of January 1,
1998; and
WHEREAS toe Region of Durham has already adapted to successive
significant reductions in Provincial funding transfers over recent years
and the Province has promised that actions taken at Queen's Park would
not have an adverse impact on property taxpayers; and
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario expressed its commitment to ensure a
fair and equitable property tax system across Ontario, and given the
acknowledged difficulties with residential undertaxation in Metro Toronto,
the Region of Durham strongly objects to cost sharing with residential
taxpayers of Metro Toronto; and
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Province defer its plans to download costs to
the municipal sector until the Ontario Fair Assessment system is fully
implemented and its impacts known to all municipalities.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Arthurs, Chair
404
HANDOUT
September 10; 1997 "REVISED"
TO: The Finance and Administration Committee
FROM: R.J. Clapp,Commissioner of Finance
r
RE: REPORT#97-F-60 (REVISED) OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE
REGARDING THE ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON THE REGION FROM THE
AUGUST 6, 1997 "WHO DOES WHAT" PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
That the Finance and Administration Committee recommend to Regional Council that the ,
following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS on August 6, 1997,the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing released an
impact analysis which provided the estimated changes in municipal costs and revenues that will
result from the Who Does What package but also cautioned that the numbers"should not be used
to estimate over-all impacts on municipalities"; and
WHEREAS on August 21, 1997,Bill 152 the Services Improvement Act, to provide new
municipal funding responsibilities related to the Who Does What package,received first reading
by the Provincial Legislature; and
WHEREAS the Regional Council of Durham strongly objects to the lack of accountability for
Regional taxpayers created by the downloading of the funding responsibility for certain services
and the pooling of service costs across the GTA municipalities without any"say" in the
managernent, delivery or scope of these services; and
WHEREAS the Regional Council of Durham has serious concerns regarding the uncertainty of
Provincial estimates; the lack of Provincial direction regarding services to be downloaded; and,
the lack of information regarding the Provincial transitional funding for interim property tax
relief with a proposed implementation date of January 1, 1998; and
WHEREAS the Region of Durham has already adapted to successive significant reductions in
Provincial funding transfers over recent years and the Province has promised that actions taken at
Queen's Park would not have an adverse impact on property taxpayers; and
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario expressed its commitment to ensure a fair and equitable
property tax system across Ontario, and given the acknowledged difficulties with residential
undertaxation in Metro Toronto,the Region of Durham strongly objects to cost sharing with
residential taxpayers of Metro Toronto-
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Province defer its plans to download costs to the municipal sector
until the Ontario Fair Assessment system is fully implemented and its impacts known to all
municipalities.
1 ) 17
KCYVKI AY/-M-OU tKC"IJCU)Vt IHC IVMMIJ5IUNCK Vt FINANCE REGARDING
THE ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON THE REGION FROM THE AUGUST 6,1"7. '
--WHO DOES WHAT"PROVINCIALAT00UNCEMENT - Page 2.
RECOMMENDAJMQ cont'd "REVISED"
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if the Province proceeds with the download of
costs to the municipal sector that:
i) the Province honour its commitment of no increases in property taxes by providing
sufficient funding to offset any additional costs to each individual municipality;
ii) the distribution of GO Transit costs across the GTA municipalities be based on an
equitable balanced formula that takes into account service levels, system wide benefits
and costs,capital expansion and benefits to Metro Toronto businesses;
iii) any pooled downloaded costs only include the costs related to a mutually agreed level of
service in order to exclude the cost differential associated with Metro Toronto's higher
level of service; and
iv) the Province immediately release all relevant information to municipalities and property
taxpayers to validate the Provincial assertion that the transfer of services will ease the
burden on property taxes-
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Regional Chair express these concerns to the
Premier of Ontario directly by letter with a copy or that ietter and this report to be forwarded to
the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing;the Minister of
Community and Social Services; Durham fv P-P.s,the eight.local area municipalities; the four
local Boards of Education; the Local Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce; the Durham
Region Manufacturers Association; the Durham Chapter of the Urban Development Institute; the
Oshawa-Durham Homebuiiders Association; the Durham Labour Council and the Durham
Region Federation of Agriculture.
- 33. 2.-
ntrUKI IHt LVMMISSI0NENVF FINANCE REGARDING
THE ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON THE REGION FROM THE AUGUST 6,1997_ -
WiiO DOES WHAT"PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT - Page 3.
REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
• On August 6, 1997, the Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing released an impact analysis which was to provide"...the next level of
detail on estimated changes in municipal costs and revenues that will result from
the Who Does What package announced on May 1, 1997"_
• Further,on August 21, 1997, Bill 152, the Services Improvement Act received
first reading by the Provincial Legislature. An overview of Bill 152 is provided in
Report#97-F-59 of the Commissioner of Finance as contained in the agenda for
the September 3, 1997 Finance and Administration Committee.
Attachment#I to this report provides a copy of the letter to the municipalities in
Ontario from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the applicable
schedule of Potential Allocation of Costs and Revenues to Durham Region.
2.0 ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT ON THE DURHAM MUNICIPAL SECTOR
• The financial impact information contained in this report has been provided
solely by the Province. The Province has not provided further details
regarding the downloading data or pooling methodology which forms the
basis of their financial analysis. In addition, the financial information is
subject to the following qualification:
• The Province has itself indicated that "There are several ways to
allocate costs and revenues... this package should not be used to
estimate overall impacts on municipalities". (Complete Provincial
qualification of the data is provided in Attachment#2).
• The Province has estimated that the net costs of downloadins to the Durham
taxpayer may range from $17.9 million to$21.1 million depending upon the
allocation of the residential education tax relief.
• The "real" financial impact on the Durham taxpaver increases to the range
of$35.3 million to$38.5 million when the additional cost of previously
announced downloading is taken into consideration, (elimination of the
Municipal Support and Library Grants and the transfer of Provincial Highways).
See table on following page.
i
...,. . �..-.-.......o.•uu✓w•' •bp�.VnmuOJ•V�.6n yr ru�nna.F nGVAKVII�b
THE ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON THE REGION FROM THE AUGUST 6.11997
"WHO DOES WHAT" PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT Page 4.
2.0 ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE DURHAM MUNICIPAL SECTOR/Cont'd
PROVINCIAV IMPACT ON THE DURHAM TAXPAYER
OF THE FUNDING TRANSFERS ANNOUNCED BY THE PROVINCE
ALT#1 ALT#2
50% OF SINGLE
ED_RES. ED.RES.
TAXES TAX RATE
(S's million) (5's million)
1. Pooled Services
Social Assistance 27.1 27.1
Chill Cam 3A 3.4
Public Health 7.4 7.4
Social Housine 40.8 40.8
Sub Total-Social Services 7S.7 78.7
GO Transit 21.7 21.7 _
Ambulance 7.6 7.6
Sub Total-Pooled Services 108.0 108.0
2. Non-Pooled Services
Property Assessmcrit 4.5 4.5
Farm Tax Rebate 4.9 4.9
Gross Receipt Tax 3A 3.4
Other 3.1 3.1
Sub Total Non Pooled Services 15a 15.9
3. Total Download Costs 123.9 123.9
4. Less Residential Education Tax Relief 106.0 102.8
5. Net Additional Cost 17.9 21.1
HOWEVER,THE REAL TAX IMPACT IS:
(.A) CHANGES OF AUGUST 6f97(PER ABOVE) 17.9 21.1
(B) PLUS PREVIOUSLI"DOWNLOADED COSTS
' Municipal Supper.Grant :6.5 16.5
Library Grants 0.9 0.9
Provincial High..ars ?? '+?
Sub Total 17 4 17.4
(C) TOTAL REAL IMPACTTO DURHAM
MUNICIPAL SECTOR- 35.3 38.5
KLrVKI "1-t-00(KLVIbLD)Ut I HE COMMW1UNER OF FINANCE REGARDING _
Tlt$ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON THE REGION FROM THE AUGUST 6,1997
"WHO DOES WHAT"PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT - - Page S. .
2.0 ESTIMATED AMPACT ON THE DURHAM MUNICIPAL SECTOR/cont'd
• The estimated impact of the Provincial downloading is an increase in residential
property taxes ranging from $114 to $144 per household(depending on the
education tax alternatives).
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF MAJOR CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVINCIAL
ANNOUNCEMENT
3.1 Uncertainty of Provincial Estimates
• The Provincial announcement indicated that the impact data should not be
used to estimate an overall impact for Municipalities. In many cases, the
Province has cautioned that the information is unreliable, unavailable and
lacking methodological detail.
• The lack of certainty and the unavailability of financial operational data
related to the downloaded services,places staff in an untenable position in
terms of meeting the responsibilities associated with planning, budgetting and
delivering these services with a starting date of less than four months.
3.2 Additional Burden on Municipal Property Tax Base
• The impact of the August 6, 1997 Provincial announcement along with the
previously announced cast transfer to municipalities is a direct download
burden of an additional S1.0 billion to the municipal property tax base in
Ontario for 1998 as follows:
Cost of Downloads tc Ontario Municipalities in 1998 million
Additional Costs to All Municipalities
- (Net of 50%of Education Credit) 545.3
Elimination of Municipal Support Grant 666.0
Downloading of Provincial Highways 75.0
Elimination of water Works Support 100.0
Shift in Education P.I.L.'s 100.0
Education Share of Gross Receipts Tax 100.0
Sub Total Costs 1 586.3
Less: Community Reinvestment Fund (500.0)
Transitional Assistance(annual) (70.01
Total Net Savings to Province 1 1163
• It is generally agreed that social service costs should be funded from
income redistributive sources-not the property tax base. In addition,
these costs are subject to volatility in economic downturns which may
impose financial burdens beyond the scope of the property tax base in the
future.
'ncrvnA ">i-r- 0%McVIO6 p) r jnb,Lk NjjbbsVN6H VF vmANCB ICLUANDIN(;
r8E ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON THE RMON FROM THE AUGUST 6,1997
"WHO DOES WHAT" PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT - Page 6.
33 Provincial.12lahn of No Property Tax Increase
• It does not appear possible for Durham to absorb the additional cost being
downloaded from the Province without an increase in property taxes in 1998_
• The Region has already absorbed reductions in Provincial funding through the
Social Contract, Expenditure Control Plan, Municipal Support Grant and red
circle funding for the Homes for the Aged totalling approximately$24 million
and implemented a Re-engineering process to save an initial $6.0 million with no
increase or very slight increases in property taxes over the past few years.
3.4 Lack of Provincial Direction on Downloaded Services
• Many key decisions regarding the allocation of costs service delivery and
operational decisions have not been made by the Province relating to those
services scheduled to be downloaded on January 1, 1998 (including Social
Housing,Ambulances,GO Transit,Welfare, etc.).
• Moreover, the Province has not yet indicated which tier of municipal government
is to assume responsibility for each downloaded service.
• It is imperative that these decisions be finalized in the very near future so that
plans can be finalized by municipalities for the delivery of services commencing
on January 1, 1998.
3.5 No Information on Transitional Funding
• The Province has not announced the details on the distribution of the Communitv
Reinvestment Fund (5500 million), transitional assistance(S70 million) nor
restructuring assistance (5800 million over four years).
• While transitional funding may provide interim financial relief to the local tax
payer, this type of funding cannot be relied upon in the long term to offset the
additional costs resulting from the downloaded services.
4.0 FISCAL IMPACT OF THE POOLING OF DOWNLOADED SERVICES
• Approximately $300 million of service costs would be shifted from Metro
Toronto to the 905 Regions effective January I, 1998 (Social Assistance, Child
Care, Public Health, Ambulance,Social Housing and GO Transit) as a result of
the pooling of services across the GTA.
• The pooling of GO Transit costs based upon "morning boardings" is an example of
the significant biases against the 905 Regions in favour of Metro Toronto.
- .i 7
REPORT#97-F-60(REVISED)OFTHECOMMISSIONEROF FINANCE REGARDING
THE ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON THE REGION FROM THE AUGUST 6,1997
"WHO DOES WHAT" PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT Page 7.
4.0 FISCAL IMPACT OF THE POOLING OF DOWNLOADED SERVICES/cont'd
• The Province has not provided "pre pooling"cost information nor the details
concerning the methodology used to determine the fiscal impact of pooling upon
individual 905 Regions.
• However, based on previous analysis conducted by Regional staff, it is estimated that
the marginal cost savings to the Durham municipal sector due to pooling of social
services will be more than offset by the significant additional costs to Durham related
to the pooling of GO Transit Social Housing Health and Ambulance services.
5.0 PAY WITHOUT SAY-NON ACCOUNTABLE TO REGIONAL TAX PAYERS
• Municipalities will be obliged to "Qav without sav" by contributing financially for a
number of functions without any accountable input to the management and delivery
of both downloaded and pooled services.
• In addition, municipalities may be asked to assume contracts that the Province has
entered into with third parties(e.g. ambulance,social housing etc.).
• It is highly unlikely that the Region will be able to achieve savings of approximately
2.0%per year or$41.1 million over three years (refer to page 5 of Attachment it 1)as
suggested by the Province for pooled services for which the Region has no
administrative authority or accountability.
• The concept of saving$41.1 million from efficiencies as estimated by the Province to
offset the cost of the downloaded services for Durham is flawed as it:
(1) represents a total savings of 2%per year for three years-but applied in year I to
offset the Provincial download cost
(2) includes efficiencies on 2%of the Region's uncontrollable budget costs relating to
Police and General Welfare(approximately 80% of the current general tax levy
budget).
(3) includes savings on the cost of downloaded and pooled services for which the
Region will have no accountable input i.e. pay without say
• Furthermore, it is unreasonable for the Province to contend that Durham Region can
save an additional $41.1 million in savings through efficiencies over and above the
S24 million in funding reductions previously absorbed by the Region due to the
Social Contract, ECP, Municipal Support Grant elimination and red circle funding for
Homes for the Aged.
6.0 1998 REGIONAL MUNICIPAL SECTOR TAX BILL
• This Provincial downloading initiative will further"entangle" the services delivered
by the Durham municipal sector and result in an increased level of confusion for the
taxpayers of Durham:
REPORT#V7-t-6U(KLV UtU)Vt 1 nt VZNA,va,q nca,,.:•.,nw
THE ESTIMATED IMPACTS ONTHEREGION FROM THE AUGUST 6,1"7
"WHO DOES WHAT" PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT Page 8.
6.0 1998 REGIONAL MUNICIPAL SECTOR TAX BILUcont'd
COST COMPONENTS OF THE PROPERTY TAX BILL
0733 I21 Po n I I 98 T x RW
Education R9lon opt
mega chY
Edu don
CR&gion GO GT58
Lam!
SUMMARY
• In 1998, the Durham Municipal sector will be facing unprecedented budget related cost
pressures. Not only will the Region be faced with renewed budgetary requirements for
current operations such as roads and police, but also the local tax bill will be affected by:
• Impact of market value reassessment
• Cost of new services downloaded for the first time
• Changes in the sharing of funding for existing services
• Charges imposed by the Greater Toronto Services Board
• Cost of services "pooled" with Metro Toronto
• Limitations imposed on services and costs for which development charges can be
coliected
• In light of these fiscal impacts facing the Durham Municipal Sector in 1998, it is
recommended that the Province delav the imposition of the downloading and pooling of
municipal services until such time as market value reassessment has been fully implemented_
• If the Province does proceed with the downloading and pooling initiatives in 1998, Provincial
funding to municipalities must be realigned to ensure that there is no additional tax burden to
the local property tax payer in 1998 and subsequent years.
R.J. app, CA
Commissioner of Finance
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
G.H. Cubitt, M.S.W_
Chief Administrative Officer J DIA-AFI'ORTSNW-D-MW
1 � "ld
rdye i or
Minicipa/� - Mid(st des - - ....
Municipal Affairs A}faires murueryates C(ERK'S UEpAR fMUVI
° artd Housing et du LogenwM /
Office of the Minister frureau du minisae Original
777 Bay Street 777 rue tray To: '- -•-
Toronto ON MSG 2E5 -Toronto ON MSG 2=
(416)585-7000 (4 1 6)585-7000 spy
To
August 6, 1997
To all Heads of Council: Take Apor.Action j
I am writing to provide you with the next level of detail on estimated changes in municipal cost
and revenues that will result from the Who Does What package announced May 1. We provided
this data yesterday to the Provincial-Municipal Implementation Team and the Social and
Community Health Services Implementation Team for their information.
I know you are concerned about your ability to begin your 1998 budget process, and I understand
that concern. I believe the numbers in this package; along with the information provided about
how these numbers were arrived at,will -Low you to begin the process.
Please keep in mind,though,that these numbers do not represent the actual impact of Who Does
What on your municipality. They are based on the current cost of providing the services in
question. The whole point of Who Does What is to eliminate duplication and put in place a more
efficient and less expensive way to deliver services. The cost of delivering these services in the
future will be lower than the current costs shown here.
The numbers in this package do not show the effect of the Community Reinvestment Fund. That
permanent S500 million a year pro!--am, along with S70 million in additional annual transition
funding, wall help municipalities that face unique circumstances.
You will notice as well that we have calculated what the impact of Who Does What would be if
each municipality finds new efficiencies. If municipalities can save about two cents on the dollar
each year over the next three years,then will be able to offer property taxpayers a tax cut by the
year 2000. Across the province, property tax cuts should average five to 10 per cent.
At the provincial level we are working hard to deliver services as efficiently as possible. We are
cutting internal administrative costs by a third, eliminating the deficit and delivering a tax cut,
.while absorbing reductions in federal transfer payments. The S2.5 billion extra tax room you
will receive when we cut residential proppe=nr taxes for education in half, the Community
Reinvestment Funds and the new flexibility you will have to deliver services cost effectively will
put you in a good position to cut taxes too. I encourage you to set your own tax reduction target,
and we will provide you with the tools to help you achieve it.
r
/2
- 60
� MLLOUII:ICIIL ✓<1
Page 2 of 5
-2 -
The government also announced today that the cost of social services,social housing, public
health services, and ambulance.services will be equalized-across the.Greater Toronto Area .GO
Transit costs will be shared by GTA regions,the new City of Toronto and Hamilton-Wentworth,
which is also served by GO_ We made this decision.because the GTA is really a single
catchment area for social and health services. This equalization will allow Toronto to meet the
demands it faces;with the rest of the GTA paying.its fair share of the cost The economic health .
of the whole region depends on a solid core_ Everyone in the GTA loses if the core staits to
erode-
In addition to the over-all numbers,the Ministry y of Finance released preliminary assessment data
today to help municipalities plan for the new Ontario Fair Assessment System. As well,the
Ontario Provincial Police has released cost-estimates for municipalities that until now have been
receiving local policing services from the OPP at no.direct cost to their municipal taxpayers.
That information is enclosed_-
i here are many levels of government,bit only one taxpayer. The people of Ontario will hold all'.
elected officials accountable for delivering the best possible services while holding taxes down-
If you have question about this package of numbers,please call your local office of the Ministry.
of Municipal Affairs and Housing Regional Operations Branch- For information on specific
programs, please contact the appropriate ministry.
Sincerely,
4L —
"Minister
r
Page 3 of 5
News Release. ® O11tat'10
Communique
Ministry of Ministere des
Municipal Affairs Affaires mur»cipales
and Housing et du Logement
For immediate release
August 6, 1997
Leach says municipal tax cuts achievable
Municipalities can cut taxes, Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Al Leach said today
following the release of estimated changes in municipal costs and revenues that would result
from the government's Who Does What initiative.
He said the numbers show municipalities will be�able to manage the new alignment of municipal
and provincial responsibilities announced May 1. The new alignment, based on proposal from
the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, is intended to bring education costs under control,
and provide better services at lower cost to taxpayers.
"By finding new efficiency savings of about two cents on the dollar per year over the next three
years, municipalities will be able to lower their residential property taxes by the year 2000,'
Leach said. `Across the province, property tax cuts should average five to 10 per cent_'
'Every level of government, every business, every taxpayer in Ontario has a responsibility to
manage within his or her means,' Leach said. 'The province is cutting internal administrative
costs by a third, eliminating the deficit and delivering a tax cut, while absorbing reductions in
federal transfer payments. Municipalities should set their own tax cut targets, and we've given
them the tools to help them do it'
Since the Greater Toronto Area is really a single catchment area for social and health services,
those costs — along with GO Transit costs —will be equalized across the entire GTA.
"Metro— at the heart of the GTA—carries more than its fair share of the responsibility for social
services in the GTA,' Leach said. 'In some cases, people who need services cross municipal
boundaries to get them. It's only fair to equalize the cost of those services, especially since the
economic and social health of the whole region depends on a solid core.'
The government is also implementing a new assessment system that will make property taxes
fairer, more accountable, more consistent and more understandable for taxpayers. Preliminary
data to help municipalities plan for the new system were released today_
Also released today were cost estimates that are part of the process to bring fairness to police
financing in Ontario. Currently 576 municipalities receive local policing services from the Ontario
Provincial Police at no direct cost to then municipal taxpayers while 202 municipalities pay for
the same services. OPP costing estimates are based on a standard formula that takes into
account the actual cost of delivering police services in each municipality.
/2
- 6�
Page 4 of 5
-2 -
t
The release of this costing information is a first step toward enabling every municipality in
Ontario to decide how best to provide police services for its residents. Local governments will
make decisions about local services, while the provincial government will ensure province-wide
standards of policing and community safety.
To help municipalities make the transition to their new roles under Who Does What, the
government will spend $800 million over three years through the Municipal Capital and
Operating Restructuring Fund to support municipal restructuring. As well, the government will
establish a permanent 5500-million-a-year Community Reinvestment Fund and provide 570
million a year in additional transition assistance for municipalities with special needs.
Two teams of municipal representatives are advising the government on implementation issues.
The Social and Community Health Services Implementation Team and the Provincial-Municipal ;
Implementation Team will look at how responsibilities should be transferred, how new municipal
costs should be allocated, and on what basis the Community Reinvestment Funds should be
distributed. As the teams' recommendations come in and the government makes decisions on
them, municipalities should be in a much better position to budget for 1998_
"The Community Reinvestment Funds, the new flexibility municipalities will have to deliver
services cost-effectively and the $2.5 billion in tax room they will have when we cut residential
property taxes for education in half should put them in an excellent position to cut property
taxes," Leach said.
"There are several levels of government, but only one taxpayer,' Leach added. "The people of
Ontario will hold all elected officials accountable for delivering the best possible services white
holding taxes down."
- 30-
For more information, please contact:
Myra Wiener Christine Burkitt
Municipal Finance Branch Office of the Minister
(416) 585-7200 — (416) 585-6932
For information on Ontario Provincial Police costs, please contact:
Stephanie Bolton Graham Gleason
Communications Branch Ontario Provincial Police
Ministry of the Solicitor General (705) 329-6200
and Correctional Services
(416) 325-9692
Please visit the.Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's World Wide Website at
http://www.mmah.gov,on.r-a
Disponible en franeais
G �
r
PGTENTIAL ALLOCATION OFCOSTS AND REVENUES
AS PEA-MAY It 1997-AGREEMENT
$Million
aurham-fTegion
Akornad ve 1 Aftornarhn 2
50 Ya of Ed Single Ed-Rea..
Rea Tama Tax Rate
Social Assistance 27.1 27.1
Child Care 3.4 3.4
Public Health 7.4 7.4
Ambulances 7.6 7.6
Social Housing 40.8 40.8
Children's Aid Societies (2-6) ' (2-6)
GO Transit 21.7 21.7
Transit-Operating and Capital 5.4 5.4
Ferries OA OA
Alrpons 0.0 I OA
Septic Inspections 02 02-
Policing OA 04
Provincial Offences Net Revenues (1.7) (1.7)
Libraries 0.7 0.7
Property Assessment 4.6 4'6
Managed Forests/Conservation lands 1.1 1.1
Farm Tax Rebate 4.9 ' 4.9
Gross Receipts Tams 3.4 3.4
Residential Education Tax Room 108.0 102.8
Net Change n Munic pai Costs/Revenues: 1T 9 212
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 608.3 608.3
Efficiencies by 2000-01 (41.1) (41.1)
(2-3%per year in each of nsM 3 years) 1
WOW Not Change After Efticismiss (23.1) I (19.8)
As%of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending (32) 1� (3.3)
All figures are esiFnates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsibilities arid related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature.where applicable.
6 64
- 1 ? ? 9
r
r BACKGROUNDER
A New Way of Doing Business
On May 1 , 1997, the Ontario government announced an agreement on transfers of
responsibilities between the province and municipalities under the Who Does What
initiative.
The Who Does What initiative has three goals:
- controlling the spiralling cost of education
- making governments less-costly and more effective by disentangling and by
eiiminating duplication in service delivery
- bringing tax fairness to Ontarians in every municipality.
On May 1 , the province reieased information on the province-wide impacts of these
transfers of responsibilities. The attached information shows these impacts at the
upper-tier district and municipal level.
How to use the attached information on local impacts of WDW transfers
This information is intended to assist the provincial/municipal implementation teams
as they develop recommendations for the government on how transfers of
responsibilities should be implemented. There are several ways to allocate costs
and revenues; this package illustrates only one. For the following reasons, this
package should not be used to estimate over-all impacts on municipalities
- Many key decisions around the cost-sharing arrangements between the province
and municipalities, the allocation of costs and revenues across municipalities or
regions, and the allocation of provincial restructuring and support funds have not
been made_ Distribution of the $500 million annual Community Reinvestment
Fund and the $70 million-annual Additional Transition Assistance will have a
significant effect on the outcome. These decisions will be made through the
ongoing consultations between the province and representatives of municipal
governments_
Many municipal services will be facing some sort of change. Whether it is
greater responsibility for current municipal services, such as sewer and water, or
taking on a new role such as social housing, municipalities need to look at how
to provide services in a more efficient and effective way. By using the tools and
flexibility to find innovative and different ways of delivering services,
municipalities should be able to find savings and efficiencies.
6a
1230
Page 2 of 2 1
Assessment numbers used for allocation are still preliminary as new OFAS data
will not be ready until fall '97. The weighting factor is also an approximation
(further decisions on tax ratio target ranges must be made before final
weighting).
- The attached information is based on ministries' most up-to-date information on
program costs. Due to the nature of individual programs, data for some
programs is more current than for others.
- Note that while the data are shown at the upper tier level, this is not intended to
indicate that all program impacts will be shared at the upper tier. For some
programs, such as policing, costs will be allocated a the lower tier.
- The information provided in this package is only a next step. More will be
provided as further decisions are made. Ultimately, decisions made by
municipalities as they set their budget priorities will determine what the bottom
line will be in each municipality.
Auaust 6, 1997
66
' 231