HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1997 (Special)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRAYERS
ROLL CALL
/<:J MUNIClPAl.lTY Of
_\..J/aJ';ngton
ONTARIO
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
DATE: AUGUST 18, 1997
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
PRESENTATION
DELEGATIONS
Rickard Recreation Complex Expansion.
1. Nigel O'Neil; Greenland Engineering, 64 Jardin Drive,
Concord, Ontario, L4K 3P3 - Report PD-108-97;and
2. Di~e Cary.,40 .Strat:tunanor Drive, Bowmanville,
.LJ.C 4L3 - Requesting a Crossing Guard at the
Intersection of Mearns Avenue and Soper Creek Drive,
Bowmanville (See correspondence ItemD - J.).
COMMUNICATIONS
.
.
Receive for Information
I - J.
I - 2
I - 3
I - 4
Correspondence received from George S. Graham,
Clerk-Administrator, The Township of Brock _
Resolution of the Rural MaYors' Committee
Regarding the Greater Toronto Services Board;
Correspondence received. from M. de Rond, Clerk,
Town of Aj ax - Aj ax Public Library - Development
Charges Act;
Correspondence received from Earl S. CUddie,
Administrator/Clerk, Township of Scugog - The
Greater Toronto Services Board, Township of
Scugog; and
News Release received from The Honourable
Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and, ,.
Housing entitled "Leach Says Municipal Tax CUts
Achievable." ". ,""1{'
@
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPAUTY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEIIPERANCE STREET. BOWNANVILLE -ONTARIO ol1C 311..6. (90S) 623-337'. FAX 123-4'st
1lh:1'CU:O""PIIl
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
-,
/g-
"(~...'.::..U
',>.:,~~:'
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Special council Agenda
- 2 -
August J.8. 1997
Receive for Direction
D - 1
Correspondence received from Diane Cary,
40 Strathmanor Drive, Bowmanville, L1C 4L3 -
Requesting a Crossing Guard be placed at the
intersection of Mearns Avenue and Soper Creek
Drive, Bowmanville.
REPORTS
1. Report PD-108-97 - Rezoning Application - J.15J.233
Ontario Ltd., Part Lot 26, B.F. Concession, former
Township of Darlington, osbourne Road;
2. Report TR-75-97 - Replacement of Tax Software;
3. Report TR-77-97 - comments on the AMO Paper;
4. nennisHefferon, Solicitor - Referral of Certain
Provisions of the Official Plan for the Municipality of
Clarington and certain provisions of the Port
Darlington Secondary Plan to the Ontario Municipal
Board (Referral No.6);
5. Report CS-09-97 - Rickard Recreation complex -
Expansion;
',~
6. Report Admin-39-97 -Proposed Transfer Station; and
".
7. Report WD-51-97 - Application to Stop Up and Close a
portion of the Road Allowance Known as Waverly Road in
Bowmanville and to Convey the Same to Blue Circle
Canada Inc. (St. Mary's Cement) - proposed Dedication
of PortionS of the Haul Road and Extensions as a Public
Highway Until the Termination of a Lease of Them to the
Municipality.
BY-LAWS
97-175
being a by-law to amend By-law 84-63, the
Comprehensive Zoning By-law of the former
corporation of the Town of Newcastle (1J.5J.233
Ontario Ltd.) (Report #1); and
97-J.76
being a by-law..to amend By-law 88-159, a by-law to
establish a policy respecting Working Funds
Reserves (Report #2) .
BY -LAW TO APPROVE 'ALL. ACTIONS OF COUNCIL
<%
ADJOURNMENT
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
il
I
II
.Iv..., I Vv. ';VI ".
COUNCIL INFORMATION
,. II I .1
'X~
< l~ 't~~[... .
t I ' \
,
AUG 5 12 20 PH '97
.~:~_:H:'~....! JI:':'J{n__~-J)
THE CORPORATION OF
THE TOWNSHIP OF BROCK
IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
1 CAMERON ST, E., P.O. BOX 10, CANNINGTON, ONTARIO LOE 1 EO (705) 432-2355
July 30, 1997
Mayor Dime Hamre
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bo~ville,OnQujo
LlC 3A6
near Mayor Hamre:
R.: Resolution of the Rural MayOl'S' Committee
R~~A1't1inO' the Orea.tet' Tomnto SP.1"V'ir.fIllll RnArtl
I am writing to advise you that Brock To....mhip Council recently considered the p()sition endorsed by the
Rural Msyors' Committee regarding the fonnation of the Greater Toronto Services Board.
The TOWll&hip Council adopted a resolution to suppon the position of the Rural Mayors' Committee,
namely requesting a grace period from the time legi61ation authorizing the GTSB is enacted unlll the end of
the tetm of Council commencing in 1997 in order to undertake the necessary review. study and public
consultation in order to decide their membership within the GTSB. .
Yours truly,
~".,-'~~"""; , 'T10. N
I_d~:>: ; '-J-
;~[X.U' __ ._ ________0
-
"":..:',,
:'\-'
~
GSG:ac
;-_.-"'...~~--.
,
_.m__'___(
._-..__._._~
",.--..-0' ,'-
._--~~-~
L--..---
;
}-- .-"-_.._~-..- --
.._-~
,
.:~-_._---;
-~--. ---~
;
i--':; C~ Lb.-iJlE~~
.. '~'-
I - I
I TOWN OF AJAX
Ja. the Reclonal Mwl1cJpallty of Ducbam.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COUNCIL INFORMATION
I - 2
\
\,
65 Harwood Avenue South
Ajax, Ontario, Canada LIS 2H9
TeleP.!1IH'Y~~83fl9~
Auc 5
Clerks Depart
[2 20 PH '97
Honourable Mike Harris
Office of the Premier
Room 281
Main Building
Toronto, ontario
M7A 1A1
AGEN []I~
Dear Premier Harris:
RE:
Aiax Public Librarv
Development Charaes Act
At the meeting July 21, 1997, the Council of the Town of Ajax
passed the following resolution:
"That Council endorse the concerns expressed by the Ajax and
Richmond Hill Public Libraries regarding changes to the
Development Charges Act and that the Premier of Ontario,
Minister of Municipal Affairs, Minister of Finance, all Durham
Region MPP's, GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs, Ajax and
Richmond Hill Public Libraries be so notified."
We enclose for your information a copy of the Ajax Public Library
and Richmond Hill correspondence which has received the support of
Ajax Town Council. We trust that these concerns will receive your
full attention and we look forward to your response.
~
M. de Rond
Clerk
c.c.
A. Leach, Minister of Municipal
E. Eves, Minister of Finance
Durham Region MPP's
GTA,Mayors and Regional Chairs
Ajax Public Library
Richmond Hill Public Library
'--._--'~.- ._.-,- - - ~-- ~ --_.- ~"-l
I;!C~-r~t~' ',~ I ~"""ON '.
,---~_.. _.! c" I
:::l.f!,::-; -,._-~._-~.__.__.+--_.-' J
;;i;';:~:,~
--..---.----.-.....
Affairs
.._-,.-,---- -
,
'__..,__n._.
- .-",'- ......_--------:
'-'--"-"'~--"- -'-
. __-...---i;
..._~--
;i. .-...-,."" ~--,--._-- ~.i ~
;~.-_~-C"..--._._---i~,--~
.,.~~:;-;;.'-~r:;LLnk:.~, .
.-+-..--~._--.--- ."
3b)
. MAX PIJBLIC
. L1BR.,IRl'
'. A;ax. Ontd(;O
. .. us 2H8
,
.
,
.--"
------------.-------------. -"
------------------------ .
June 25, 1997
Mrs. Janet Ecker
MPP Durham West
1550 Kingston Road
Suite #213
Pickering, Ontario
Ll V 1 C3
JUN 3 0 1997
MAYOR's 0 -
FFICE
Dear Janet:
.'
I am writing this letter to inform you of a concern that has arisen about Bill 98,
the Development Charges Act. As set out in the attached memo from Jane
Horrocks, CEO of the Richmond Hill Public Library, it appears that the Bill has
inadvertently excluded computer purchases for public libraries as an allowable
Development Charge expense. This appears to have come about because
administrative costs have been excluded, and public access computers in
libraries got caught up in this exclusion. However, computers in libraries are
an essential component of direct service delivery and as such, must be
included in any system development resulting from increased service demand
due to community growth. Please convey our concerns on this matter to your
colleagues during any discussions regarding this legislation.
I have included for your information, a reference to the appropriate section of
Bill 98 and a proposal of word changes as provided by Mrs. Horrocks.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and your ongoing support of
the Ajax Public Library and community of Ajax. '
.-
.... \,'
Administration & Technical Services
/905J ~2
FAX~4
E-MAiL niegCgov.OII.ca
Main 8lanch
/905) 683.4000
FAX 683.6960
McLean Branch
(905) 428-8489
FAX 428-3743
Vlhge Blanch
(905) 683-1140
FAX 683-11'"
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
!
i
II
I
II
~~\,j.o:
..
RICHMOND HILL PUBLIC LIBRARY
Administrative Offices
(905) nC-0310 Fax no-0312
1 Atkinson Street. RiChmond HIli, Ontario L4C OHs
BY TELECOP1F.R
.
ME~
TO:
GeoffNie, CEO
Aj;,x Public Libnuy
Jane Horrocks, CbQ
Richmond Hill Public Library
FROM:
DATE:
June 12, 1997
RE:
COMl'lJ J..I!iHS EXCLUDED IN BILL 98, DEVELOPMENT ClIARGEs
A change aff~"g hbIllries was discovered very late in the legislative process for Bill 98. In
conmltation with ~ other GTA CEO's, it is ~ that perIOGal appro"<:ba be made to
Cabinet level MPP's as SOOl1 as possible to identifY the problem and hopefully to initiate a
'clarificatiQU' ill UIl" Third }t('lltllng orlbe BID.
The Second Reading of Bill 98, followiog the C1ause-by-C1ausc el'Rmin,,"OIl, elCc1udes computers as
an allowable Development Chargelt expense for 1ibraiies. The Firat RllItll"8 of the Bill included
COmputer expendiiures. This Wuc came to light early this week as a result of a discussion with my
municipal, !;n~uciaI countc:rparta.
ThiJJ change in the Bill O<:CUII'ed durilIgIafter the C1awe-by-Clause review and seems to have oome
. about bAc:--"'I$C administrative COsta such as municipal head'quartci- facilities have been eJccluded and
therefore computer applications in municipalities, which for the moSt part handle administrative data,
were also excluded. Libnuy public access computen got caught in the exclulliull.
While librarie. have a minor administrative use of computers (primarily microcomputers), the major
use in temu of pl'OC-slng reqWrP.nlPnts. equipmem" software and thercfure COllt, consists of direct
public acces& or staff-assisted access on behalf of the public. Computm in libl'llries directlY support
the 'materials acquired rex circulation, nWlrenee or information purpO$CS by a libnxy baaed as IMiuoo
in the Public Libraries A.ct' as laid out in Bill 98 (~t1;~ched). Searching for and circulating nweriaIs
housed in ntlW fkcilities purchased for new reaidents through developmem charges monies will only be
possible via computer and all of the Second lleatllng capital computec costs will have to be borne by
existing residents.
Jane~
:lp
Anch.
Underst~ntl;l1gofProcess
It is ow: undcma.oding that the negotiatiOJlB between the development induslry, the municipal
:sector and the ProWloe rl::iU!1.l:d in &grP1'-""eftf that COmputCf costs related to administrative
purpo_ should not be fi"ul,ble from development charges.
It would appear that in the clall!le-ny-clause review of Bill 98, library computer COlitIS relAted to
public access were ind,"Jed in the general enlusion of computer equipment for nmoi.cipa1ities
and local boards, lbis pcobably waa an wllnteuuc::d ~ght.
There is a clear reference to the inclusion of the materials in Bill 98 but no reference to the
eompallion computers.
There is an inextri~ liDk: between mlltCriab acquired for circulation, rd'",~ or in1'onnation
purposes and the computers that enable public accesa to those materials. These books and other
ltCOlllltn, inll=i'ole witbout public service computers. There are no other options as card
catalogues no longer exist and manuallending{retuming pl"OC':S~'" are too costly and staff
intensive to reintroduce.
We suggest that wording similar to the following would clarJfY the iDtP.lVled exclusion of
computen for administrati yc purposes and the inc!Ilsion of public aecc:ss computers:
Bill 98 Patt n
SecJart5(3)
Capitallli<ls, (3) The following are capital costs for the pIUJ10~'" (If paragrah 6 of the
iDclusiolls subseetion (1) if they are ~ or proposed to be inmrred by a
mwncipalliy or a \ocQl board dircctly or indirc<<ly:
4.i.l furniture and equipmem, other than administrative computer
equipment, and
, iL Materials and computen acquired for circuIation, reference or
infonmtion purposes by a library board as defined in the Public
Libraries Act.
Note: Suggested additions in bold.
='
\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
,
II
COUNCIL INFORMATION
TOWNSHIP OF SCUGOG
I - 3
181 PERRY STREET.. P,O, BOX 780 Phone: 905-985-7346
PORT PERRY. ONTARIO L9L lA7 or 905-985-7393
Main Office Fax: 905-985-9914
AUG 5 9 28 AM '!Trek's Office Fax: 905-985-1931
EARL S. CUDDlE, A.M.C.T, c.Me
Admini~lralOr-Clcrk
July 29, 1997
Honourable AI Leach
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
clo Office for the Greater Toronto Area
777 Bay Street, 16th Floor
TORONTO, Ontario
M5G 2E5
Re: The Greater Toronto Services Board
Township of Scugog
Dear Mr. Leach:
At a special meeting of the Council of the Township of Scugog, Council passed
Resolution No. 97-364 with respect to participating in the GTSB,
A copy of Resolution No. 97-364 is enclosed for your information.
If you have any further questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to advisf;l.
Yours truly,
~~
---.. -...-" ----., -,..----_... --.(
, rH'."m-' '1~.rN '.'
l..-"'~':::' ~ . '- {.. ...j I I
f.lU;~ __ .____.__ __~ (
i'\~>~ ;~:'
Earl S. Cuddie
AM.CT, C.M,C.
Administrator/Clerk
~~R:;" :~'::;~_~__I_~~~ _'____ _____.~
.. ,
; ~:n!;::;.
;
i-----.
.-.. ---'--i-~-----'---' '.":
1
.--.-----.,-- -~._-.__._.~
______1.____..____ --.
Attach.
cc: Mr. M. Farrow. Special Advisor
Premier of Ontario
Durham Area M.P.P.'s
Durham Region CAO & Clerks
Association of Municipalities of O)lj.~~:,.
-~l\r~3
- --l---'~'_._--~
,-_-..
!
(---- ---'~,..- """-,
, '
j---~ ..--t.----,
I I
,------ - ------,----..!
:--'.--.' --------r--,...,-,
!--~~'7"----.-- ~75~~
, h, L. J.o_j.:T_...,_ ...
,__._,~__. .._. ___ __._____..___..w_...~
\...
.
Special Meeting
July 14, 1997
I
4.
GTSB DISCUSSIONS - (cont'd)
A lengthy round table disalssion developed centering around general endorsement
of the resolution. The resolution focuses on seeking provision in the Legislation for
a three year window to study the ramifications of being a part of Ihe GTSB. Some
members felt that the resolution was too lim~ed and restrictive. It was suggested
that the resolution include a study and examination of options related to possible
amalgamations andlor restructuring, The Municipality should explore possible
options and take appropriate steps to determine its own future, including a public
consultation process.
I
I
I
The Council sighled the uncertainty surrounding such unknowns as the cost of
policing the impact of actual value assessmenl and the distribution of Social Service
costs to identify a few areas. It was suggested that a Staff report should be
developed in conjunction with adjacent municipalnies outroning what should be
looked al in the form of amalgamation and/or restructuring and the cosl of
undertaking the studies including the service, delivery and the cost of being in or out
of the GTSB.
I
I
RESOLUTION NO: 97-364
Moved by: Councillor Carruthers
Seconded by: Councillor Pearce
I
WHEREAS the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
appointed Mr. Mitt Farrow as his Special Advisor on the
govemmenl's proposed intention to establish a Greater
Toronto Services Board (GTSB);
I
AND WHEREAS on June 18. 1997. the Office of the Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing released Mr, Farrow's report
enlitled Report of the Special Advisor "Getting Together" which
recommends the formation of a GTSB effective January 1.
1998, thereby deleting the opportunity for the member
mun;c;palities to carry out necessary studies;
I
I
AND WH EREAS it is imperative to the rural municipalities of
the GTA to conduct proper review, studies and public
consultation to determine the effect the formation of the GTSB
will have on each municipality and ~s ratepayers;
I
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED;-
I
1,
THAT the Rural Municipalities in the GTA. namely. the
municipal~ies of Milton. Halton Hills. Caledon, King,
Whitchurch-Stouffville. East Gwillimbury. Georgina.
Brock, Uxbridge. SCU909 and Clarington be given a
grace period from the time the legislation is passed to
the end of the term of Council thai will commence in
1997, in order to carry out the necessary review. studies
and perf""" a comprehensive public process in order to
decide their membership in the GTSB; and
I
I
I
2,
THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Minisler of Municipal Affairs and Housing. the Premier
of Ontario. the MPP's of Ontario. the rural municipaUties
of the GTA. the regional municipalities within the GTA.
the Special Advisor to the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, Mr, Milt Farrow and AMO, '
I
I
Carried
189
I
I
I~\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
i
!I
II
I
II
I
,
II
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
,
COUNCIL INFO&~TION
I - 4
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Office of the Minister
n7 Bay Street
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
(416) 565-7000
Ministere des
Affaires municlpales
et du Logement
Bureau du ministre
7n rue Bay
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
(416) 585-7000
~
2 5'3 PPI '91
nUG 1
Ontario
August 6, 1997
To all Heads of Council:
I am writing to provide you with the next level of detail on estimated changes in municipal costs
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 allow 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 $500 million a year program, along with $70 million in additional annual transition
funding, will 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. Ifmunicipalities can save about two cents on the dollar
each year over the next three years, they 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 $2.5 billion extra tax room you
will receive when we cut residential property 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.
12
~..::....
- 2-
The government also announced today that the cost of social services, social housing, public
heaIth 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 GT A 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 GT A loses if the core starts to ,.
erode. ' .
In addition to the over-all numbers, the Ministry of Finance released prelhninary asseSsment data
today to help municipalities plan for the new Ontario Fair Assessment System. As well, the '
Ontario Provincial Pollce has released cost estimates for municipalities that until now have been
receiving local policirig services from the OPP at no direct cost to their municipal taxpayers.
1bat information is' enclosed: '
There are many levels of government, but 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 questions' 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,
L
'Minister _
--~.
.........t'
...
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
1ClO'lt1..__
,~~J
--
I
..
,
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
il
il
I
News Release
Communique
~ Ontario
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Ministere des
Affaires municipales
et du logement
For immediate release
August 6, 1997
Leach says municipal tax cuts achievable
Municipalities can cut taxes, Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister AI 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 a 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 their 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 pelice services in each municipality. .' ",
/2
-2-
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 $500-million-a-year Community Reinvestment Fund and provide $70
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 d~livering the best possible services while
holding taxes down."
- 30-
For more information, please contact:
Myra Wiener
Municipal Finance Branch
(416) 585-7200
Christine Burkitt
Office of the Minister
(416) 585-6932
For information on Ontario Provincial Police costs, please contact:
Stephanie Bolton
Communications Branch
Ministry of the Solicitor General
and Correctional Services
(416) 325-9692
Graham Gleason
Ontario Provincial Police
(705) 329-6200
Please visit the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's World Wide Website at
http://www.mmah.gov.on.ca
Disponible en franc;:ais
'.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
II
,
II
I
II
;1
I
II
,
II
I
I
I
II
I
!I
II
I
BACKGROUNDER
Government in Transition
Smaller. more efficient government
The people of Ontario believe taxes are too high. They believe less waste and
duplication would mean better, more efficient, less costly government.
The provincial government is committed to a fundamental change in the way
governments -- at all levels -- deliver services. It has promised to cut spending,
eliminate overlap, simplify roles and responsibilities, restructure cumbersome
bureaucracies and reduce waste and duplication.
At the provincial level, the government is reducing the provincial deficit, cutting its
own operating spending by a third, and delivering a tax cut despite a 42.5 per cent
cut in Canada Health and Social Transfer payments from the federal government
between 1995-96 and 1998-99.
The municipal world is changing
Municipalities, too, face new demands for less,expensive, more efficient
government. The provincial government can no'longer provide the funding it once
did to help municipalities deliver services and property taxpayers will not pay higher
taxes. Municipalities are operating in a new world, with new demands.
The province has made changes to help municipalities deal with this new world.
(See Backgrounder entitled "Municipal Tools to Improve Services, Reduce Costs".)
Who Does What
In May 1996, the government appointed the Who Does What panel, chaired by
David Crombie. The panel's job was to advise the government on how best to sort
out provincial and municipal roles and responsibilities to eliminate duplication,
improve accountability, and make sure decisions are made at the most appropriate
level. The goal of the realignment is to enable both the province and municipalities
to find efficiencies, save money and provide quality services to taxpayers.
In May 1997, in response to the Who Does What panel's recommendations and
subsequent municipal input, the government announced a new alignment of
1
provincial and municipal responsibilities. At the heart of the change is the
government's proposal to cut the education portion of residential property taxes in
half, with the province taking on a greater share of education costs. The
government would set tax rates for the portion of residential taxes that continues
to go toward education, and that rate would be frozen.
This would allow the government to get spiralling education costs under control,
and focus resources in the classroom to improve the quality of education for
students.
This reduction in property taxes for education would give municipalities new tax
room to take over control and management of programs and services without
increasing the total property taxes residents pay.
The Who Does What package would ensure that local services, such as municipal
transportation and sewer and water services, are delivered by municipal
governments, which are best able to identify and respond to local needs. It would
also integrate local welfare, health services and social housing at the community
level. The province would continue to pay 80 per cent of the cost of welfare
benefits, with municipalities paying the other 20 per cent.
The reforms would provide municipalities with many opportunities to find
efficiencies. For example, emergency dispatch services like police, fire and
ambulance could eventually be better coordinated to improve service and reduce
costs by eliminating duplication. Property tax and assessment reform would give
municipalities more flexibility and autonomy, reduce administration costs and cut
down on losses of revenue due to appeals. Municipalities would also be able to
further reduce costs and improve services through innovative partnerships.
The province and municipalities are working together, through two implementation
teams, to ensure a smooth transition to the new way of delivering services. By the
year 2000, when the Who Does What reforms are fully implemented, this new
alignment of responsibilities would result in better, more efficient and less costly
government at both the provincial and municipal levels.
August 6, 1 997
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
ill
I
,
I
'I
I
I
.
I
II
BACKGROUNDER
Cost equalization in the GT A
The Greater Toronto Area (GT Al is one economic and social community. People
who live in one part of the GTA may work in another, shop in yet another and go to
still another for entertainment and leisure activities. According to the Golden Task
Force report, nearly 100,000 commuters travel from York Region to Metro every
morning, while more than 60,000 travel the other way. More than 100,000
commuters come to Metro every morning from Peel Region, and more than 50,000
travel the other way. Residents in all parts of the GTA benefit from and use
municipal services throughout this area without regard for boundaries.
II
Histocially, the heart of the GTA -- Metro -- has faced a greater demand for social
services than other parts of the GT A. In 1994. welfare case loads in Metro were
50.4 per 1,000 population, compared to 24.3 in Durham, 16.8 in Peel, 16.5 in
York and 9.8 in Halton. That is because the GTA is really a single catchment area
for social and health services. People who need services cross municipal
boundaries to get them. Historically, people with lower incomes have tended to
move to the core, where public transportation is more convenient, social services
are more readily available and low-cost housing may be easier to find.
II
II
,I
:1
For those reasons, the government intends to equalize the cost of social services,
social housing, public health services, and ambl:llance services across the GTA. GO
Transit costs would also be shared by GTA municipalities and by Hamilton-
Wentworth, which is also served by GO.
This equalization will allow Metro to meet the demands it faces, with the rest of
the GTA paying its fair share of the cost. This will help the Greater Toronto Area
continue avoid the problems that have plagued large urban areas in the United
States -- polarization into "have" and "have not" areas, and the hollowing out of
the downtown core.
The economic and social health of the whole region depends on a solid core.
Everyone in the GT A loses if the core starts to erode.
August 6, 1997
II
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 dise!ltangling and by
eliminating duplication in service delivery
- bringing tax fairness to Ontarians in every municipality.
On May 1, the province released 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 WOW 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
govemments.
- 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.
_ 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.
August 6, 1997
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
II
I
II
II
I
BACKGROUNDER
Municipal Tools to Improve Services, Reduce Costs
I
II
II
,
II
II
!I
,
The provincial government promised to give municipalities the tools they need to
provide better local services at lower cost to taxpayers. Municipalities have asked
for more flexibility to make local decisions that make sense for their communities,
and for better tools to cut spending, eliminate overlap and streamline
administration.
The redefined list of provindal and municipal roles and responsibilities that are part
of the Who Does What package will mean local services can be delivered more
efficiently and cost-effectively, and in a more transparent and understandable way,
so taxpayers will know who to hold accountable.
The government is providing a number of other tools to help municipalities as they
take over control and management of programs and services as part of the Who
Does What package of reforms announced May 1.
The province has already passed legislation to give municipalities:
new restructuring powers, including the ability to dissolve or change local
boards, and the ability to transfer respoAsibility for certain services between
different levels of local government '
new flexibility to set tax rates and phase in tax changes
new flexibility in providing fire and police services
Other proposed tools include the $800-million Municipal Capital and Operating
Restructuring Fund, the $500-million a year permanent Community Reinvestment
Fund, $70 million a year in additional transition assistance for municipalities with special needs,
and a proposed new Municipal Act, which would give municipalities more flexibility.
* * *
The municipal world will be very different in 1998, with new responsibilities and
demands placed on councils. As a result of the changes made by the province so
far, and the new tools being proposed, municipalities will be well-equipped to take
on their new roles and responsibilities.
1
August 6, 1997
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
II
I
I
II
,
,
I
I
II
II
,
II
JI
,
!I
I
I
,
i
BACKGROUNDER
Components of the WOW package
As a result of discussions with AMO, the government announced a revised Who
Does What package. Subject to passage by the Legislature. the components of the
package are as follows:
Education
· Province reduces residential education taxes by 50 per cent and assumes this
education funding responsibility
· Province sets and freezes the residential property tax rate for the remaining
50 per cent
The analysis shows two possible alternatives for reducing residential education
property taxes by $2.5 billion. The government will be seeking advice from the
Proivncial Municipal Implementation Team on the two options.
The first alternative is a reduction of exactly 50 per cent of the residential
education property taxes previously paid in each single and upper-tier municipality.
As a result, there would continue to be significant variation in the residential
education tax rates across the province. <
The second alternative is a uniform residential tax rate, province-wide, subject to
the provision that each upper and single-tier municipality would see a reduction of
at least 40 per cent of the education taxes previously paid. Most would receive a
reduction of more than 40 per cent. In those areas where movement to the
uniform rate would not result in a 40 per cent tax reduction, a tax rate lower than
the uniform rate would apply.
1 00 per cent Provincial Responsibility
.. Children's Aid Societies
. Homes for Special Care
. Long Term Care (except homes for' the aged)
.. Shelters for Abused Women
1
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
.
I
100 per cent Municipal Responsibility
(While costs have been broken down by upper-tier geographic areas, the
responsibility for individual services may fall to the local or upper-tier -- county or
region -- level, or to a consolidated municipal delivery organization that delivers
services across more than one municipality. Some services may be delivered by
different levels of municipal government in different parts of the province. The list
below indicates the most likely level to deliver the service. Where different levels
may deliver the service in different parts of the province, both levels are indicated.)
~ Ferries (local)
~ Fi re (local)
~ GO Transit (to be determined)
~ Land Ambulances (to be determined)
~ Municipal Airports (local/upper tier)
~ Municipal Transit (local/upper tier)
~ Police (local/upper tier)
~ Property Assessment Services (to be determined)
~ Public Health Programs (upper tier)
~ Public libraries (local/upper tier)
~ Septic System Inspections/Approvals (local/upper tier)
~ Sewer and Water (local/upper tier)
~ Social Housing (to be determined)
80/20 Provincial/Municipal Shared Responsibility
,
~ Child Care (upper tier)
~ Proposed Ontario Disability Support Program (provincial)
~ Ontario Works (upper tier)
SO/50 Shared Responsibility
~ Proposed Ontario Disability Support Program administration (provincial)
~ Ontario Works administration (upper tier)
New Justice Partnership
~ Municipalities to administer and prosecute more Provincial Offences Act
matters and to keep net fine revenue (details of revenue sharing of the $65
million to be determined)
I
I
I
I I
II
!
II
,
II
!I
!
II
II
'Implementation Funding
~ Community Reinvestment Strategy to be established:
Community Reinvestment Fund
permanent $500 million annually
additional $70 million annually for municipalities with special
needs
Municipal Capital and Operating Restructuring Fund - $800 million +
over four years:
$1 73 million Non-profit housing
$200 million Transportation
$200 million Water and Sewer
$227 million + Restructuring transition assistance
~ $42 million to Ontario Housing Corporation for capital repairs and upgrades
~ $225 million to address impacts of transferring 3,400 km of provincial
highways to municipalities
Revenue Changes
... Farm tax, managed forests and conservation lands tax rebates to be
eliminated and replaced with new property classes with reduced tax rates;
conservation lands to be exempt
... Gross Receipts Tax transferred to province
,~ Municipal Support Grant to be eliminated
August 6, 1997
3
BACKGROUNDER
Police Financing
The policing cost estimates that are being released today are part of the process
that will change the method of financing police services in Ontario and will bring
fairness to the way that Ontario taxpayers pay for their policing.
At the present time, 576 municipalities receive OPP policing at no direct cost to
their municipal taxpayers, while another 202 municipalities are currently paying for
the same services. In 1990 ,and in 1 994. the Provincial Auditor brought this
inequity to the attention of the previous governments, but they failed to act.
The estimates are based on a standard formula that takes into account the actual
cost of delivering police services in each municipality. They are being released in
conjunction with estimated changes in municipal costs and revenues that will result
from the realignment of provincial and municipal responsibilities announced May 1,
1997. The changes to the method of financing police services were originally
announced on January 14, 1 997, when amendments to the Police Services Act.
The changes take effect January 1, 1998.
The costing estimates are being delivered to the affected municipalities by the OPP
detachment commanders responsible for the affected municipalities. The OPP will
continue to patrol the affected communities while each municipality decides how
best to provide policing services, the Ministry's police services advisers will work
closely with the municipalities as they examine their options.
August 6, 1991'
I
I
I
I I
'II
I
II
I
II
II
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
Countv I MuniciDalitv
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
CDunty
Average
Household
~
iHB&ift.tc8_'~::::~::'~::'NWF#t~~*~WMtW}~:~.tW1W*fW~1~Wioo~:NfFW&XnfUtti2:fc:......,':: ..,~:...':..:;qn%.~~:~)*Z3jrWi<-.:~~-::;!.l1:T61I!!'"!I, '
....,. "".-'''' .... ".'.'." ,.., .,..... .,.i".}....;;;~:;;:;:.x~. ....;.;,;;~,._..}0, .,",V.:-:,;.:.,",_," .,8:w,,:,.w<. .A.:.c."S(:':....<-,_,.,....,-:-.,.,... ,. .i:'!l!'~ .., ... .."...,:,.w~:';'.,~. ~@%"""':+'V"'N'"'' ,..~~;;.o. ". "'h/...,."_,,
.......,.,.,~.w...w...,...."...w""w M" .,.,..,....,....,....,. ..""~,...:x: . 'Wm.v."'.'"...."....,....,.... ". ........... :::<<.....~...'.........d..v...........w...,. ..........N"'"........;,-h...~ ~:w.-:-:.......<.>"M....0:'... .........................
Brantford Twp 769,223 2,167
Burford Twp 723,432 2,038
Oakland Twp 167,547 472
Onondaga Twp 192,750 543
South Dumfries Twp 673,381 1,897
il
lHBii~~1i1W-*w,&liWruml@i!l!Wi!IWi!IW1'wFmOOm~WA~'liNmg~~~
~~\~~~~~1'.&&mm~mill:m.m@mmmlliWmmm&$:mt1_bliWi~~~~~::m~~
Albemarie Twp 245,479 1,403
Amabel Twp 664,351 3,797
Arran Twp 100,781 576
Brant Twp 235,856 1,348
Bruce Twp 141,724 810
Carrick Twp 138,049 789
Culmss Twp 102,006 583
Easlnor Twp 304,968 1,743
Elderslie Twp 74,711 427
Greenock Twp 105,680 604
Hepworth Village 32,194 184
Humn & Ripley ViUage Twp 443,367 2,534
Kincardine Twp ,243,205 1,390
Kinless Twp '80,660 461
Lindsay Twp 148,022 846
Lion's Head Village 53,715 307
Lucknow Viaage 97,107 555
Mi/dmay Village 80,485 460
Paisley Vdlage 82,760 473
Saugeen Twp 204,362 1,168
Sl Edmunds Twp 239,180 1,367
Tara Village 64,038 366
Teeswater Vdlage 80,835 462
TJVerton Village 57,389 328
II
Amaranth Twp 309,197 1,125'
East Garafraxa Twp 195,137 710
East Luther Grand Valley Twp 254,503 926
Melancthon Twp 264,672 963
Mono Twp 621,141 2,260
Mulmur Twp 363,065 1,321
Page 1
Countv I Municioalitv
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
County
Average
Household
Cost
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
j~tf@JS!BRMjm~~rt*i1@W*jl]~jr~~j~ttllti~U1l\f.mf:*l:tJ.ftKt~Ef~l~iltt'jlD;'B;'~fJID~~f:if'~l'!lWm%f[*li_.~
Aid borough Twp 497,841 1,735
Bayham Twp 426,966 1,488
Belmont Village 144,044 502
Dunwich Twp 255,950 892
Dutton Village 125,106 436
Malahide Twp 529,1.17 1,844
Port Burnwell Village 129,123 450
Port Stanley Village 367,857 1,282
South Dorchester Twp 186,224 649
Southwold Twp 434,140 1,513
Springfield Village 65,135 '127
Vienna Village 48,206 168
West Lome Twp 172,164 600
Yarmouth Twp 778,468 2,713
%~."",
:~>..:_.:>.
Colchester North Twp 353,460 1,390
Gosfield North Twp 379,397 1,492
Maidstone Twp 285,311 1,1'12
Mersea Twp 249,202 980
Pelee Twp . 89,001 350
Rochester Twp 408,895 1,608
Sandwich South Twp 514,170 2,0'12
Tilbury North Twp 369,480 1,453
Tilbury West Twp 155,624 612
Bame Twp 255,179
Bedford Twp 407,460
Clarendon & Miller Twp 205,402
Hinchinbrooke Twp 175,890
Howe Island Twp 60,794
Kennebec Twp 198,910
Loughborough Twp 439,726
Olden Twp 136,345
Oso Twp 182,m
Palmerston & NlS Canonto Twp 123,753
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
County I MuniciDalitv
m~!tlglIlBI._IVRt!D..g~~M:~TI!{J.I~!~
Pittsburgh Twp
Portland Twp
Storrington Twp
Wolfe Island Twp
Preliminary
Estimate
631,356
376,768
391,523
154,642
Number
of
Households
3,209
1,915
1,990
786
County
Average
Household
~
qiiw;r;~~WWi!&%MI'ATh7&:€1ml@;'W&iiiM1iWMJmi1;w%m!;r'Ji'W'1'iOiii't<t;ji'<"m}1Wl\t$'iii<U''l'Em,liHM.il:>.i'1/i'ifi
rk~;.i;:~~1t~~~.ww~m.fthh4~Jdf.".;d~W.~4~i..~~iM~~
Artemesia
Bentinck
Chatsworth
Collingwood
Derby
Dundalk
Egremont
Euphrasia
Flesherton
Glenelg
Holland
Keppel
Markdale
Neustadt
Normanby
Osprey
Proton
Sarawak
Shallow Lake
St Vincent
Sullivan
Sydenham
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
Vdlage
Vdlage
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
482,030
383,522
53,851
342,018
278,448
182,304
269,254
253,230
76,704
270,567
340,179
528,000
168,119
65,409
275,296
~60,848
213,039
285,015
48,334
333,612
271,618
351,737
1,835
1,460
205
1,302
1,060
694
1,025
964
292
1,030
1,295
2,010
640
249
1,048
993
811
1,085
184
1,270
1,034
1,339
Delhi
Dunnville
Haldimand
Nanticoke
Norfolk
Simcoe
Twp
Town
Town
City
Twp
Town
1,443,948
1,102,701
1,793,239
1,983,338
1,039,405
158,769
6,821
5,209
8,471
9,369
4,910
750
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
321,477
31,717
135,375
631,548
142,779
164,191
103,857
Page 3
3,213
317
1,353
6,312
1,427
1,641
1,038
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
County I MuniciDalitv
~~~tJ1!!~l~1<<iI~__~ilI~M*[1~1]tl}_i~f
Sherborne et al Twp
Snowdon Twp
Stanhope Twp
Preliminary
Estimate
192,606
86,248
223,823
Number
of
Households
1,925
862
2,237
County
Average
Household
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
iItl!ilt..BiltE.'I~I__fmlf_S_laIlli1*i_W
Bancroft
Bangor, Wicklow & McClure
Carlow
Deloro
Dungannon
Elzevir & Grimsthorpe
Faraday
Frankford
Herschel
Hungerford
Huntingdon
Limerick
Madoc
Madoc
Marmora
Marmora & Lake
Mayo
M ontea91e
Rawdon
Sidney
Thurlow
Tudor & Cashel
Tyendinaga
WolIaston
Town
, Twp
Twp
ViUage
Twp
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Village
Vinage
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
290,821
388,344
77,769
16,504
162,539
126,031
310,325
212,802
295,822
381,843
290,320
132,782
193,797
155,788
161,289
.406,849
'78,519
165,290
249,811
1,465,605
679,165
184,295
304,324
178,293
1,163
1,553
311
66
650
504
1,241
851
1,183
1,527
1,161
531
775
623
645
1,627
314
661
999
5,861
2,716
737
1,217
713
Ashfield
Bayfield
Blyth
Brussels
Colbome
East Wawanosh
Goderich
Grey
Hay
HensaU
Howick
Hulett
McKiIop
Twp
Village
ViUage
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
ViI1age
Twp
Twp
Twp
Page 4
231,929
113,903
69,407
82,636
192,931
67,174
249,968
113,216
257,699
81,433
214,406
103,767
77,138
1,350
663
404
481
1,123
391
1,455
659
1,500
474
1,248
604
449
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
County I MuniciDalitv
~ff~lq!9Ji~RlliliR_iftl[~RM1~_sii
Morris Twp
Stanley Twp
Stephen Twp
Tuckesrmith Twp
Turnbery Twp
Usborne Twp
West Wawanosh , Twp
Zurich Village
~~.'{.w.:.
Bothwell Town
Camden Twp
Chatham Twp
Dover Twp
Erie Beach ViUage
Erieau Village
Harwich Twp
Highgate Village
Howard Twp
Orford Twp
Raleigh Twp
Romney Twp
Tharnesville (Blenheim) Village
Tilbury East Twp
Zone Twp
Preliminary
Estimate
109,093
190,697
315,767
186,059
104,626
91,397
80,746
61,504
Number
of
Households
635
1,110
1,838
1,083
609
532
470
358
County
Average
Household
~
"' '
109,004
219,916
679,641
428,114
37,334
93,744
749,949
48,779
256,160
135,165
.518,588
t14,466
108,459
221,551
110,367
400
807
2,494
1,571
137
344
2,752
179
940
496
1,903
787
398
813
405
Village
Village
Town
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Town
ViUage
Twp
ViUag.
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Village
Vdlage
116,042
54,509
989,305
180,666
153,411
307,946
115,199
334,077
307,665
1,105,628
80,920
557,450
476,249
95,250
232,084
186,004
214,663
Page 5
413
194
3,521
643
546
1,096
410
1,189
1,095
3,935
288
1,984
1,695
339
826
662
764
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
County I MuniciDalitv
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
County
Average
Household
Cost
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m~mIfil~!f.i~{tlt[If:1~~~OOl~~i11ilfiltfl@1f.~I1twiflf@fIII:4.t'B~1i~t!lltlJ.i~lfltr.
Bathurst Twp
Bec~nh Twp
Darling Twp
Drummond Twp
Lanark Twp
Lanar!< Village
Lavant, Dalhousie & N, Sherbroo Twp
Montague Twp
North Burgess Twp
North Elmsley Twp
Pakenham Twp
Ramsay Twp
South Sherbrooke Twp
221,402
390,072
99,143
273,773
143,026
63,748
204,968
210,025
214,359
238,919
143,749
263,299
151,875
1,226
2,160
549
1,516
792
353
1,135
1,163
1,187
1,323
796
1,458
841
~~.
~~~~~.t
Athens
Augusta
Bastard & South Burgess
Edwardsburgh
Elizabethtown
Front Leeds and Lansdowne
Front of Escott
Front of Yonge
Killey
Merrickville
Newboro
North Crosby
Oxford-on-Rideau
Rear Leeds and Lansdowne
Rear Y onge and Escott
South Crosby
South Elmsley
South Gower
Westport
Wolford
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Village
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Page 6
95,986
650,443
438,188
448,093
650,443
{)12,473
,
177,586
251,876
206,359
106,835
39,857
244,329
576,861
468,611
190,793
369,087
449,508
202,821
80,421
148,814
407
2,758
1,858
1,900
2,758
2,597
753
1,068
875
453
169
1,036
2,446
1,987
809
1,565
1,906
960
341
631
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
II
I
II
I
I
I
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
County I MuniciDalitv
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
CDunty
Average
Household
Cost
t~lb,ilil11ii~UJlilli!~i_mi*tt@tl1Jtl_i!tfi~tf~t{~;l~fI~JJllk"'_~JJt,~
Adolphustown Twp
Amherst Island Twp
Bath Village
Camden East Twp
Denbigh, Abinger & Ashby Twp
Ernestown Twp
Kaladar, Anglesea & Effingham, Twp
Newburgh Vdlage
North Fredericksburgh Twp
Richmond Twp
Sheffield Twp
South Fredericksburgh Twp
@ll"iiijf~.
~~~"'"
Adelaide
Ailsa Craig
Biddulph
Caradoc
Delaware
East Williams
Ekfrid
Glencoe
Lobo
London
Lucan
McGillivray
Metcalfe
Mosa
Newbury
North Dorchester
ParkhiD
Wardsville
West Nissouri
West Williams
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Vdlage
Twp
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Town
Village
Twp
Twp
167,663
68,056
148,107
463,095
284,21 9
1,087,073
319,681
75,096
324,896
377,829
256,579
134,026
'lmmJi!!1iil. ,liili!lllJi"'. '
". 'JIDm(~~::,,,.,
203,520
123,640
254,921
766,501
256,658
154,898
285,137
296,251
624,801
5n,914
236,514
216,371
116,694
168,095
60,778
990,165
227,484
59,736
421,975
108,359
643
261
568
1,776
1,090
4,169
1,226
288
1,246
1,449
984
514
586
356
734
2,207
739
446
821
853
1,799
1,664
681
623
336
484
175
2,851
655
172
1,215
312
A1nwick
8righton
Brighton
Ca~ellford
Cramahe
Colborne
Haklimand
Hamiton
Twp
Town
Twp
Town
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
237,997
492,887
394,057
420,781
347,164
221,106
424,311
1,053,844
Page 7
944
1,955
1,563
1,669
l,3IT
8IT
1,683
4,180
County I MuniciDalitv
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
County
Average
Household
Cost
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
ff.liUi_lll1~l._&~ifml~a~
Hope Twp
Murray Twp
Percy & Warkworth Village Twp
Seymour Twp
361,282 1,433
659,535 2,616
388,511 1,541
666,594 2,644
il_.j\1{.~. ~,
Blandford-Blenheim Twp
East Zorra Tavistock Twp
NOnMch Twp
South-West Oxford Twp
Zorra Twp
.~::. ..-jr!lIR_
688,802 2,503
463,696 1,685
760,627 2,764
793,649 2,884
826,122 3,002
k(~~l\llm
::"J~U.~>>.~ ."
Blanshard Twp
Downie Twp
Easthope North Twp
Easthope South Twp
Ellice Twp
8ma Twp
Fullarton Twp
Hibbert Twp
Logan Twp
Momington Twp
Wallace Twp
161,814
198,822
179,425
157,220
259,821
345,067
135,015
.117,404
173,810
229,449
183,253
Asphodel Twp
Belmont & Methuen Twp
Burleigh - Anstrulher Twp
Cavan Twp
Chandos Twp
Douro Twp
Dummer Twp
Ennismore Twp
Galway & Cavendish Twp
Harvey Twp
Havelock Village
Millbrook V~age
North Monaghan Twp
Norwood Village
otonabee Twp
Smith Twp
South Monaghan Twp
195,145
660,004
417,894
355,977
269,522
259,746
343,900
375,146
400,450
615,914
109,649
99,681
76,486
116,742
377,446
851,315
161,982
Page 8
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
County I MuniciDalitv
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
County
Average
Household
Cost
..,.....b.."..."",.''''..''''.;l;t'i:it'"'!.,.'''"'''"'w.'''''''''-'~'l!.l"",-m."'.'^r'."..'."'''"'%"@E^''.''''''.*^lillM_~JiWi'4@~1imiW,,"!iMm!!:W~\j;o'llijO*
Mld.S.1~ii~41~~.li.llt.~mN~~MMt{i!ih&mf~tjit'~a!i_[~i~1f4~1ii4~l~
1,388
537
2,028
949
3,561
1,312
802
603
1,392
375
2,731
3,695
672
323
851
1,097
Alfred & Alfred Village Twp 292,921
Caledonia Twp 113,328
Cambridge Twp 427,986
Casselman Village 200,275
Clarence Twp 751,508
East Hawkesbury Twp 276,882
L'Orignal Village 169,253
Longueuil Twp 127,256
North Plantagenet Twp 293,766
Plantagenet Village 79,139
Rockland Town 576,346
Russell Twp 779,787
South Plantagenet Twp 141,818
St Isidore Village 68,165
Vankleek Hill Town 179,594
West Hawkesbury Twp 231,509
AmeUasburgh Twp 363,290
Athol Twp 108,139
Bloomfield Village . 44,791
Hallowell Twp 291,144
Hillier Twp 137,733
North Marysburgh Twp 115,818
Sophiasburgh Twp 157,250
South Marysburgh Twp 84,944
Wellington Village 134,374
Admaston Twp 139,554
Alice and Fraser Twp 278,721
Bagot & Blythfield Twp 259,339
Bany's Bay Vdlage 102,728
Beachburg Village 63,962
Braeside Village 42,060
Bromley Twp 86,640
Brougham Twp 75,592
Brudenell and Lyndoch Twp 104,666
Chalk River Village 74,041
Cobden Village 87,609
Eganville Vdlage 114,551
Grattan Twp 125,405
GrifliIh & Matawatchan Twp 101,565
Hagarty and Richards Twp 225,225
Head, Clara and Maria Twp 59,117
Page 9
2,271
676
280
1,820
861
724
983
531
840
720
1,438
1,338
530
330
217
447
390
540
382
452
591
647
524
1,162
305
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
County I Municioalitv
*m.gB.lt~gl_tB1Ji~$~~*!fMi~iij
Horton Twp
Killaloe Village
McNab Twp
North Algona Twp
Petawawa Twp
Pelawawa Village
Radcliffe Twp
Raglan Twp
Rolph, Buchanan, Wylie & McKa Twp
Ross Twp
Sebastopol Twp
Sherwood, Jones and Bums Twp
South Algona Twp
Stafford & Pembroke Twp
Westmeath Twp
Wilberforce Twp
Preliminary
Estimate
218,635
62,412
452,970
114,163
365,361
396,567
189,368
94,005
181,808
167,078
110,674
236,467
70,746
358,383
256,819
184,716
Number
of
Households
County
Average
Household
Cost
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,128
322
2,337
589
1,885
2,046
977
485
938
862
571
1,220
365
1,849
1,325
953
Adjala - T osorontio
Clearview
Essa
Oro-Medonte
Ramara
Severn
Springwater
Tay
Tiny
Wasaga Beach
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Town
Charlottenburgh
Chesterville
Cornwall
Rnch
Rnch
Iroquois
Kenyon
Lancaster
Lancaster
Lochiel
Malida
Maxville
Monisburg
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Village
Vinage
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Village
Village
Page 10
718,661
1,207,764
1,074,797
1,131,767
1,325,738
1,369,979
1 ,250,038
1,293,050
2,033,831
1,638,371
794,219
165,560 .
630,481
229,077
49,980
139,528
361,056
449,823
83,561
306,130
333,202
83,561
280,358
2,924
4,914
4,373
7,046
5,394
5,574
5,086
5,261
8,275
6,666
3,051
636
2,422
880
192
536
1,387
1,728
321
1,176
1,280
321
1,077
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
!
II
II
i
II
II
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
Countv I MuniciDaUty
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
!~~~IJ9ll.ill!lj!lnI~llmilr.BJJMitlil!g.II~;rfJrfimjrHJmg1~j,fu111~]
Mountain Twp 313,158 1,203
Osnabruck Twp 472,991 1,817
Roxborough Twp 327,996 1,260
Williamsburgh Twp 340,491 1,308
Winchester Twp 315,761 1,213
Winchester Village 249,381 958
"'''''"-'''I''",'~:.''t'lU<tt[fWm'!t,"'t!!illi'\1l!''
*J<<\.~~\_m~r.~ii{:h_,.
Baxley
Bobcaygeon
Carden
Dalton
Eldon
Emily
Fenelon
Fenelon Falls
Laxton, Digby, Longford
Manvers
Mariposa
Omemee
Ops
Somerville
Sturgeon Point
Verulam
Woodville
County
Average
Household
~
..W. .' 'iii@lWl\\W:\l1f4mti;olqt~ll~
. -,..~:.:~~=t{%t,.:,,,,,~~:;::.;,::t,.~w~t~1
Twp
Vdlage
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Village
258,207
278,149
160,557
60,851
341,056
536,150
768,043
210,924
214,213
398,412
573,360
99,911
336,122
465,020
27,959
506,136
60,851
1,256
1,353
781
296
1,659
2,608
3,736
1,026
1,042
1,938
2,789
486
1,635
2,262
136
2,462
296
Arthur
Arthur
Clifford
Drayton
Bora
Eramos.
Erin
Erin
Guelph
Maryborough
Minto
Nichol
Peel
Pilkington
Pusinch
West Garafraxa
West Luther
Twp
ViVage
Village
Village
Vinage
Twp
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
233,062
213,070
84,702
127,316
317,500
542,934
704,972
243,584
266,732
313,555
222,014
348,540
337,755
210,966
451,656
399,309
110,481
Page 11
886
810
322
484
1,207
2,064
2,680
926
1,014
1,192
844
1,325
1,284
802
1,717
1,518
420
..""':"'~::<<. '.."
District I Municioalitv
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
District
Average
Household
Cost
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
Blind River Town 843,110
Bruce Mines Town 132,086
Day & Bright Addttional Twp 180,443
Dubreuilville Twp 146,861
Hitton Twp 123,578
Hitton Beach Village 72,087
Homepayne Twp 276,261
I ron Bridge Village 162,085
Jocelyn Twp 143,279
Johnson Twp 218,949
Laird Twp 221,635
Macdonald, Meredith & Aberdee Twp 330,886
Plummer Addttional Twp 208,203
Prince Twp 188,950
Shedden Twp 173,726
StJoseph Twp 401,182
Tarbutt & Tarbutt Addttional Twp 172,831
The North Shore Twp 168,353
Thessalon Town .275,365
Thessalon Twp 175,517
Thompson Twp 51,043
White River Twp 212,233
-
Black River - Matheson Twp 741,978
Cochrane Town 938,145
Fauquier - Strickland Twp 199,724
Glackmeyer Twp 254,102
Hearst Town 1,218,165
Iroquois Falls Town 1,224,264
Mattice-Val Cote Twp 201,757
Moonbeam Twp 493,466
Moosonee Dev. Area Bd Town 342,530
Opasatika Twp 77,247
Smooth Rock Falls Town 403,006
Timmins city 423,334
Val Rita-Harty Twp 213,446
1,460
1,846
393
500
2,397
2,409
397
971
674
152
793
833
420
Page 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,II
.
.
II
I
il
,
i
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
District 1 Municioalitv
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
District
Average
Household
Cost
"'>""':"""""."''"''''''=1&M'''''"''!!!!W4;mIWl;mliWjffiNIHq'<<~'''''%*@!K$lif.niil""~,,!O'''''''r!w'*''1&m'i_N'>>''''''i>'''..'. "''''"
~W1~mJH!~R~g*ftf~4t~mm__itltl&u1mf1f~im1mmhd~Mti~~et~n:~i_l~~gtfJftt~fk'!!
Barclay
Ear Falls
Golden
Ignace
Jaffray Melick
Keewatin
Machin
Pickle Lake
Red Lake
Sioux Lookout
Sioux Narrows
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Town
Town
Twp
Twp
Twp
Town
Twp
429,242
405,751
688,353
652,049
1,173,119
646,354
452,733
205,011
689,065
841,400
384,396
603
570
967
916
1,648
908
636
288
968
1,182
640
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Town
Twp
Town
Twp
Twp
Twp
253,311
27,025
203,586
65,580
235,655
30,268
161,067
,146,654
~07,721
245,023
79,272
108,819
117,827
703
75
565
182
654
84
447
407
854
680
220
302
327
Bracebridge
Georgian Bay
Gravenhurst
Hun1sville
Lake of Bays
Muskoka Lakes
Twp
Town
Town
Twp
Twp
1,457,175
1,021,114
1,515,722
1,830,912
922,696
1,912,332
6,944
4,866
7,223
8,725 .
4,397
9,113 .
Airy
Bonfield
Cache Bay
Caldwell
Calvin
Chisholm
East Ferris
Field
Twp
Twp
Town
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
143,637
324,422
87,031
267,108
85,970
191,752
610,988
134,792
Page 13
406
917
246
755
243
542
1,727
381
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES ( DISTRICTS
District ( Municioalitv
j~f\ltefl!fi9.11m!!!HII~~8Ivj:9JItlirjtf~~i~[m{f~1l}lili
Mattawa Town
Mattawan Twp
Papineau - Cameron Twp
Springer Twp
Temagami Twp
Preliminary
Estimate
367,230
27,949
162,388
371,121
224,300
Number
of
Households
District
Average
Household
Cost
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,038
79
459
1,049
634
'''''.''..",'"<"''..,~""''''''_~=~- "" ."W"''*''"'',,",~.,..',~m.',' .!\W'...' '...."!i)mlt""
i* .~. .....- .~Qu:tituGt.~;ti".. :. '~h';'.:l-:: '.. '::. .~~..:. .'.. :.'~ :.' :'~~~ . ':::
.",.Jl:...-.@R:~.,.>>:.,.:"~".,.,,:,:,,.,.:~.:.:<-:-:-:.,.,.,.,,<<::;'>:l; l-. . "". . .,:::;:;1:::::.%.,x.,.:.~. .".,..::::-::'.;;.::'.."":'''';',X'l< "..>>,,,.;.::::.., ....,.::::=,:::. ;:::::,;.:.:.:<<.;.,' . ~ - ..... JIL-~ ~.,:,.:-:<<.,.
Armour
Bur!<'s Falls
Carling
Chapman
Christie
Foley
Hagerman
Himsworth North
Himsworth South
Humphrey
Joly
Kearney
Machar
Magnetawan
McDougall
McKellar
McMurrich
Nipissing
Perry
Powassan
Rosseau
Ryerson
South River
Strong
Sundridge
The Archipelago
Trout Creek
, Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Town
Twp
Village
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Town
Village
Twp
ViUage
Twp
Village
Twp
Town
187,665
76,757
253,263
116,656
151,315
225,874
141,002
220,295
100,764
289,950
31,785
175,830
133,901
24,684
.200,683
2'11,841
87,915
184,960
232,467
76,418
26,544
85,717
79,631
145,060
78,447
527,828
37,702
1,110
454
1,498
690
895
1,336
834
1,303
596
1,715
188
1,040
792
146
1,187
1,253
520,
1,094
1,375
452
157
507
471
858
464
3,122
223
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
70,091
36,247
78,389
109,613
78,825
34,936
40,395
Page 14
321
166
359
502
361
160
185
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
District I MuniciDalitv
f~!1K1m~iY]ltlniJ;!I1gl1liillilli{1~ilifr~j~mm*jNj~
Morson Twp
Rainy River Town
Worthington Twp
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
District
Average
Household
Cost
73,148
98,696
335
452
'''''~;UIl';:>'''''''''n~'iii''''!lY''''''WiIll'''.:,r''''., . ."~xmi$);'I'lC' ~m""'t"'*,%":'iJ!(lli€'IT~>lil""~I~:ff.'''':j..%'"..".",.,., Wj*mlO~~.,nw,
1\~~.r:v~w.. ""J;::;~'.".i:zW:::':':::*j', ....~~,~;.:.: *~~*m%.:$' t~:::;Y&~:::::::::;:;~:*::;0.&1:i::, :....:. "~,,:::~:::',',~:i:::"':':~': ~:.:::::?:~z::;~:I~';"':
-v~.i>>>.:.,,,,,,;..;.:.:.>>.:~<';::il!!~:.,:.:<v>>>;.;v;.;.*~::::' . ::;.r==**::: . . . >>** .;.;*;n;=.~ ;:::;.:. ;;;;:::;m1x::::::::0m;;m;;:>>N.:...._. ;.;m*" . ~~;: ., ", m~m~;",~0X'
Baldwin Twp 176,374 342
Casimir, Jennings & Appleby Twp 351,200 681
Chapleau Twp 631,748 1,225
Cosby, Mason & Martland Twp 463,110 898
Hagar Twp 192,361 373
Massey Town 247,026 479
Nairn Twp 104,174 202
Ratter & Dunnel Twp 262.498 509
Spanish River Twp 384,206 745
Webbwood Town 120,161 233
~-
~~
Beardmore
Conmee
Dorion
Geraldlon
Gillies
Longlac
Manilouwadge
Nakina
Neebing
Nipigon
O'Connor
Oliver
Paipoonge
Schreiber
Shuniah
Twp
Twp
Twp
Town
Twp
Town
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
99,375 237
109,857 262
88,473 211
,465,425 1,110
'85,118 203
318,669 760
594,570 1,418
145,917 348
227,681 543
383,661 915
106,503 254
356,826 851
439,848 1,049
322,862 770
836,927 1,996
.
214,964 502
26,549 62
62,091 145
66,802 156
49,245 115
263,352 615
123,326 288
71,512 167
178,994 418
316,879 740
Page 15
Twp
Twp
Twp
Twp
Town
Town
Twp
Twp
Twp
Town
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
1998 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
SUMMARY BY COUNTIES I DISTRICTS
Preliminary
Estimate
Number
of
Households
District I Municioalitv
i~~I!lilm!Ii]lIt~mfBli~flitfJ.tt~[&1Wil~~
Evanturel Twp 87,356 204
Gauthier Imp, Oist, 30,403 71
Haileybury Town 837,588 1,956
Harley Twp 87,784 205
Harris Twp 95,920 224
Hilliard Twp 38,1'11 89
Hudson Twp 129,749 303
James Twp 119,900 280
Kems Twp 58,665 137
Larder Lake Twp 232,949 544
Latchford Town 79,648 186
Matachewan Twp 115,618 270
McGarry Twp 214,964 502
Thomloe Village 20,554 48
District
Average
Household
Cost
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
II
I
I
II
II
\
,
11
,
II
r
I
11
jl
I
BACKGROUNDER
Next Steps
Who Does What implementation and transition will take time. Many decisions and
activities are still to come.
Some of the key decisions that will be made over the next several months are: how
money available under the Community Reinvestment Strategy will be allocated;
how various programs will be cost-shared among municipalities (within regions and
across the province); and what further program reform is needed before full
implementation takes place .Ifor example, social housing programs).
Many of these decisions will be made after further consultation with municipalities
and other stakeholders. Consultation, legislation, ongoing communication with
stakeholders, and education and training for provincial and municipal staff and
politicians are the significant next steps in the implementation of the proposed
WOW reforms.
All of these activities will take place over the next 12 to 18 months as we move
toward full implementation of WOW.
CONSULTATION
Consultation has already taken place on many Of the Who Does What program
changes. Ongoing discussion with municipalities and other stakeholders is critical
to successful implementation of the changes and there will be plenty of
opportunities for further input.
A number of consultation activities are currently underway. For example:
Provincial-Municipal Implementation Team (PM IT)
Social and Community Health Services Implementation Team (SCHSIT)
These two teams are composed of elected municipal officials and are both co-
chaired by Terry Mundell, President of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario
along with Ernie Hardeman, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing (PM IT) and Jack Carroll, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister
of Community and Social Services (SCHSIT). The teams were set up to help
ensure a smooth transition to the new roles and responsibilities for both the
province and municipalities.
1
The teams advise the government on changes to a number of the programs
proposed through the WOW reforms.
The Provincial-Municipal Implementation Team, for example, is looking at: issues
related to the transfer of highways to municipalities; a proposed new Municipal Act;
eligibility and classification of lands for the purposes of the Managed Forest
Rebates; implementation issues with respect to assessment service delivery,
municipal transit and GO Transit; and the Kingston-area and Pelee Island ferry
business plans.
The Social and Community Health Services Implementation Team will provide
advice on a comprehensive integrated implementation plan for the transition of
social and community health programs; the most effective models for integrated
local delivery of social and community health programs; the number of consolidated
municipal service delivery agents and their service boundaries; cross-cutting
implementation issues; and training and education requirements.
Both teams will provide important advice on allocation principles for the Community
Reinvestment Fund and the Municipal Capital and Operating Restructuring Fund,
and on education and training of municipal employees.
Business Education Tax Review Panel
As part of the government's ongoing plan to create a fair property tax system
across the province, a Business Education Tax,Review Panel has been appointed.
The panel is composed of five members from the business community. Its role is
to consult with business and advise the government on a fair and equitable method
of determining the allocation of education taxes for commercial and industrial
properties.
Consultation is also taking place on many of the specific programs being transferred
to municipalities.
LEGISLATION
Legislation has been passed which implements some of the province's proposed
reforms, including the Fewer School Boards Act, the Fair Municipal Finance Act, the
Better Local Government Act, the City of Toronto Act, the Fire Protection and
Prevention Act. the Water and Sewage Services Improvement Act, and the Police
Services Act.
New legislation is being brought forward for consideration by the Legislature,
including the Development Charges Act, the Local Control of Public Ubraries Act,
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the Streamlining Administration of Provincial Offences Act, the Public Sector
Transition Stability Act and the Social Assistance Reform Act.
Additional legislation will be introduced as decisions are made and after further
consultation on specific program changes.
The province intends to have the legislation needed to implement the Who Does
What reforms in place for January 1, 1998.
ONGOING COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
The government is committed to providing municipalities and other stakeholders
with regular information updates. This will be achieved in a number of ways:
Joint AMO/Provincial Government Newsletter
The province and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will issue a joint
newsletter, on a regular basis, to provide municipalities and other stakeholders with
updates on the status of the WDW reforms. This will include information on
proposed legislation, consultation exercises and information pieces on individual
program changes. The first edition of the newsletter should be available soon.
Communications from Ministries
Over the next 1 2 to 1 8 months, as reforms propeed, ministries will provide
municipalities and other stakeholders with information on program changes as
decisions are made or implementation takes place.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
A key component to a smooth implementation and transition is ensuring new
service providers are well prepared to deliver the new services under their control.
The province and a number of municipal and other associations are working
together to develop an education and training strategy.
The purpose of this joint strategy is to determine training needs, identify available
resources and coordinate training activities over the next several months. The
training available must match the needs of a number of clients and it is important
that the province and associations work together to provide this service to
stakeholders.
3
Some individual training strategies are also being developed.
~ For example, as a result of a municipal-provincial task force, the Ministry of
the Attorney General is already developing information documents such as
municipal orientation training packages for managers and staff and an
operations manual to be used in tandem with training sessions on the
administration of the Provincial Offences Act. Training sessions for selected
sites are expected to be arranged with the advice and assistance of municipal
associations. They will include in-depth training in the areas of technology,
administration and prosecution.
~ The government is developing a plain language guide to the Fair Municipal
Finance Act, which will explain new municipal responsibilities under the Act.
A first version is expected to be available in late summer. It will be updated
as further decisions are made on the implementation of the new Act.
LABOUR RELATIONS
The province is committed to a fair and orderly transition during the implementation
of various restructuring initiatives that affect municipalities, hospitals and schools
throughout Ontario. To that end, the government introduced the Public Sector
Transition Stability Act on June 3, 1997.
The intent of the proposed legislation is to minimize service disruption and ensure
labour relations issues are resolved in a timely manner while making sure that
employees are treated fairly as restructuring is implemented. Employers and unions
will continue to use the collective bargaining process; however, if negotiation is not
successful additional processes would be available to help them resolve their
issues.
If passed, the legislation would:
~ establish a temporary Labour Relations Transition Commission to resolve
labour issues associated with public sector restructuring, including issues
such as the structure of bargaining units, union representation and seniority.
~ establish a Dispute Resolution Commission that would reform arbitration in
the fire, police and hospital sectors where strikes and lockouts are not
permitted. For other sectors, including municipalities and schools, at the
request of either party, the commission would have temporary power to deal
with disputes arising from the negotiation of a first contract following an
amalgamation or merger.
August 6, 1 997
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
!
II
I
II
II
;
,
II
11
Backgrounder: Potential Allocation of Costs and Revenues
As Per May 1, 1997 Agreement
On May 1, the province released information on the province-wide changes in costs and
revenues resulting from a transfer of responsibilities between municipalities and the
provincial government. This realignment is based on a proposal submitted by municipal
representatives and adopted by the provincial government as part of the Who Does What
initiative.
The attached tables show this information arranged alphabetically by geographic regions
that correspond to upper-tier municipalities, single tier municipalities and northern
districts. Transfer of responsibilities and related changes may require the approval of the
legislature, where applicable.
This information is intended to assist the Provincial-Municipal Implementation Team and
the Social and Community Health Services Implementation Team as they provide advice
to the government on how the transfers of responsibilities should be implemented.
For reasons outlined below, the information in this package should be viewed as
preliminary:
. These estimates do not include the $500 million Community Reinvestment Fund and
$70 million in Additional Transition Assistance. They also do not include Municipal
Capital and Operating Fund (MCORF) funding of at least $800 million (additional
funds will be available based on demonstrated need).
. Many key issues concerning the implementation of cost-sharing arrangements
between the province and municipalities as well as the distribution of the Community
Reinvestment Fund have not yet been resolved. These decisions will be made after
consultations with the municipal teams.
. A decision has not yet been made on how a uniform province-wide residential
education tax rate will be levied. Two alternatives are presented in this package:
1) 50% of 1997 residential education taxes and 2) a single uniform rate modified to
ensure taxpayers in all municipalities receive at I.east a 40% reduction from 1997
taxes.
. 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.
· While data are shown at the upper tier or single tier level, this is not intended to
indicate that all program costs will be shared in this manner. For some programs,
such as Policing, costs will be allocated at the lower tier level.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL AUGNMENT
& ALLOCA110N METHODOLOGY BY PROGRAM
(SubJect to the the approval of the legislature where applicable)
For the following social services programs, total provincial and municipal spending in the
Greater Toronto Area (GT A) was aggregated. Each GTA upper tier municipality was then
assigned a share of this amount equal to its share of assessment (based on the Ontario Fair
Assessment System and weighted to reflect the mix of property tax classes). The data shown
represent the potential change in municipal spending.
Social Assistance Program Partnership
The province will pay 80% of allowances and benefits and the municipalities will pay 20%.
All administrative costs will be shared on a 50:50 basis.
The data are based on estimated 1998-99 expenditures.
Child Care Services Partnership
The province will pay 80% and municipalities will pay 20% of costs.
The data are based on estimated 1998-99 expenditures.
Public Health
$225 million in Public Health costs for local services will be assumed by municipalities.
Nevertheless, the province will retain responsibility'for programs that require province-wide
coordination such as immunization.
,
The data are based on 1997 allocations to Boards of Health. Ministry allocations to multi-
county Boards of Health Q.e., Boards that serve more than one upper tier or county) have
been distributed to individual upper tiers on the basis of population.
Land Ambulances
Only the responsibility for land ambulances will be transferred. As such, the province will
continue to fund air ambulance operations and central dispatch centres.
The data were compiled from the 1996-97 budget for licensed ambulance service operators.
Social Housing I Non-Proflt Housing I Ontario Housing Corporation
The provincial portion of Social Housing funding will be assumed by municipalities in
January 1998 along with other programs. Prior to devolution, the province will have
invested (on a one-time basis) an additionaJ $215 million to repair aging social housing
stock. Non-profit and co-operative housing sponsors will receive a $173 million boost to
their capital reserve funds. The balance of the funding of $42 million is targeted for Ontarid
Housing Corporation capital repairs and upgrades. The province will retain responsibility for
funding c1ose-out costs related to the cancellation of 395 non-profit housing projects.
The data are based on 1997-98 estimated costs.
i,
For the remaining programs, the data generally are based on actual costs or revenues at the
upper tier or district level.
Children's Aid Societies (CAS)
Child Welfare is a part of a larger system of services which is currently provincially funded.
Therefore, the province will assume responsibility for the CAS.
The data are based on 1996 estimated municipal subsidies as submitted by agencies and
Area Offices. .
GO Transit Services
GO Transit costs will be assumed by GT A regional municipalities, the new City of Toronto
and Hamilton-Wentworth region. The rest of the province is unaffected.
Costs have been allocated on the basis of morning boardings using 1996-97 provincial
subsidy data. This option is used for iOustrative purposes only and is only one among a
range of cost allocation fonnulas now under review by the province in consultation with
municipalities.
The province will continue to provide funds to GO Transit in the amounts necessary to
enable GO to satisfy the financial obligations of the sale and saleback agreement, related to
the rail fleet. GO Transit will be responsible for the costs of the maintenance and capital
refurbishment of the rail fleet.
Municipal Transit
Municipalities will assume responsibility for transit funding. However, the province will fulfill
the following contractual capital funding obligations: the five-year agreement between the
province, the Toronto Transit Commission and Metro Toronto to fund transit capital
programs, the agreement to complete the Sheppard subway project, and financial
assistance to purchase new buses for transit systems across the province.
Operating costs are allocated based on the 1996-97 provincial operating subsidy. The
capital costs have been allocated using annualized historical five-year capital subsidy
requirements.
Local Fenies
Municipalities will assume responsibility for ferry services to Amherst, Howe, Mackenzie,
Pelee and Simcoe Islands. These ferries primarily serve local needs or link local roads.
Operating needs are based on annual operating subsidies and direct MTO operating
expenses. Capital numbers are based on annualized near-term critical needs.
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
Municipal Airports
Municipalities will assume responsibility for funding municipal airports. Provincial support
will continue for airports in remote northem Ontario communities.
Operating costs are based on annualized provincial subsidies. Capital needs are based on
annualized capital replacement identified in multi-year airport planning studies.
Septic Inspections
The costs associated with septic tank inspections will be assumed by municipalities.
The data are based on 1995.96 costs.
Pollee Financing , ,
Over 500 municipalities do not pay for Ontario Provincial Police services, while all others
pay for their policing services. All municipalities will now pay for policing.
The data are based on 1996-97 actual costs.
Provincial Offences Revenues
Revenue under Provincial Offences Act, Part I (minor ticketed offences) and Part III
(regulatory offenceslcourt appearances) net of costs of administration, court support,
facilities, adjudication and prosecution costs will be retained by municipalities taking on new
POA responsibilities.
The data are based on actual 1995-96 revenues by court lOcation net of bOth transferred
and retained costs.
Ubraries
The province currenUy supports libraries through Per Household Grants. Responsibility for
funding libraries will be transferred to municipalities. The province will retain its role in
developing and supporting the province-wide library network, continue to provide support to
the First Nations Ubrary System, and provide Ubrary Strategic Development Funds.
The data were compiled from 1997 Ubrary Operating Grants and 1996-97 Pay Equity costs.
Property Assessment
The responsibility for property assessment will be returned to municipalities following
assessment refonn.
The data are current as of July 1997.
-.
iii
Farm Tax & OUter Rebates
Under the Ontario Fair Assessment System, eligible Farm & Managed Forest Lands will be
taxed at 25% of the residential tax rate and there will be no taxes for eligible Conservation
Lands. Tax rebates will no longer be necessaJ)'.
Estimates of the potential change in municipal revenues are based on 1995 Fann Tax
Rebate data and 1997 Managed Forest Rebate projections. Potential changes in school
board revenues are not shown.
Gross Receipts Tax (GRT)
Municipal GRT revenue will now be directed to the province. Education GRT revenue will
continue to be received by school boards.
The data are based on 1997-98 estimated revenues.
Residential Education Taxes
These taxes are estimated at $5.0 billion. The province will assume responsibility for setting
residential education taxes. Residential education taxes will be cut in half and tax rates will
be consistent throughout the province. Tax rates will be frozen. The remaining $2.5 billion
in residential tax room will be made available to municipalities. In retum, municipalities will
assume responsibility for services best, delivered at the local level.
Two altematives for reducing residential education property taxes are presented. The
govemment will be seeking aclvice from municipa! ~epreseQtatives on the two options.
The first a1temative shows a reduction of exactly 50 per cent of 1997 residential education
property taxes in each single and upper-tier municipality. In the longer tenn, the fairest
way of moving to a consistent rate structure will be studied.
The second a1temative shows a unifonn residential tax rate, province-wide, subject to the
provision that residents in each upper and single-tier municipality would see a reduction of
at least 40 per cent from 1997 residential education taxes. Most would receive more than a
40 per cent reduction. In those areas where movement to the unifonn rate would not result
in a 40 per cent tax reduction, a tax rate lower than the unifonn rate would apply.
Municipal Own-Purpose Spending
EStimates are based on 1995 total operating and capital spending, adjusted to exclude
provincial transfers for social services and to include municipal own-purpose spending after
implementation of Who Does What
Efficiencies
EStimates of potential efficiencies assume savings of approximately 2% per annum f~r thre!!
years and are based on 1995 spending (adjusted as described above). .
iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-, POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
AI oma District
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
I 50% of Ed. I Silgle Ed. Res.
Res. TallllS TaxRaIe
Social Assistance 13.9 13.9
Child Care 0.8 0.8
Public Health 3.6 3.6
Ambulances 3.0 3.0
Social Housilg 8.3 8.3
Children's Aid Societies (0.8) (0.8)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operati1g and Capilaf 1.6 1.6
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.3 0.3
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policilg 4.9 4.9
Provi1ciaf Offences Net Revenues (1.3) (1.3)
Ulraries , 0.4 0.4
.
Property Assessment 1.4 1.4
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Fann Tax Rebate 0.2 0.2
Gross Recaipls TallllS 1.6 1.6,.
Residential Education Tax Room (17.91 (16.7\
IINet Change iI Municipa\ Costs I Revenues: ~ II 20.2 ( II 21.4 ij
Post.WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spendilg 194.1 194.1
EffICiencies by ~1 (13.1) (13.1)
(2.3% per year iI each of nell! 3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies 7.1 8.3
As % of Post.WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spendilg 3.6 4.3
All figures are estinates: See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsililities and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable. -.
1
POTeNTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997AGREEMENT
$ Million
Brant County
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Sngle Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
~~:;dal Assistance 11.4 11.4
;'Child Care 0.8 0.8
Public Health 3.1 3.1
Ambulances 0.8 0.8
Social Housng 7.6 7.6
Chftdren's Aid Societies (0.9) (O.g)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit. Operatilg and Capital 1.2 1.2
Ferries 0.0 0.0
AiIports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policng 2.5 2.5
Provincial Offences Net Revenues . (1.0) (1.0)
Lilraries , 0.2 0.2
Property Assessment 1.1 1.1
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands. 0.0 0.0
Fann Tax Rebate 2.6 2.6
Gross Receipts Taxes 1.1 1.1
Residential Education Tax Room (19.0\ (17.4\
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: I] . ~ 11.8 ij II 13.4 I
Post.WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendng 166.4 166.4
EffICiencies by 2QOO.01 (11.2) (11.2)
(2.3% per year n each of nll)lt 3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies 0.6 2.1
As % of Post.WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg 0.4 1.3
All figures are ~ates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsiJftities and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
'I
I
POTENTIAL Al.:LOCATlON OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Btuce Coun
Anemalive 1
Anemativrl2
50% of Ed.
Res.TallllS
Silgle Ed. Res.
Tax Rate
ial Assista: IC9
hUll. Care
Public Health
bulances
oeial Housilg
hUdren's Aid Societies
o Transit
ransil - Operatilg and Capital
Ferries
Akports
Septic Inspections
Policilg
Provncial Offenc9s Net Revenues
L.i:lraries
Property Assessment
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands
Fann Tax Rebate
Gross Receipts TaJlIls
3.3
0.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
(0.2)
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.2
4.0
(0.4)
0.2
1.1
0.3
2.4
0.6
3.3
0.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
(0.2)
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.2-
4.0
(0.4)
0.2
1.1
0.3
2.4
0.6
Residential Education Tax Room
14.8
13.1
~Net Change il Municipal Costs I Revenues:
~ .~
1.5
i ~
3.3
I
Post-WOW Mun~ OWn-Purpose Spendilg
Efficiencies by 2000-01
(2.3% per year il each of nElJCl3 years)
WDW Net Change After EffIciencies
As % of Post-WDW Municipal Own.Purpose Spend,ilg
98.3
(6.6)
(5.1)
(5.2)
98.3
(6.6)
(3.3)
(3.4)
All figures are estinates. See accompanyng notes. Transfer of responsibDilies and related changes may
require 1I1e approval of the Legislature, where applicable. ~.
3
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Cochrane District
Altemative 1 Atternative2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
--
Social Assistance 7.3 7.3
Chad Care 0.5 0.5
Public Health 3.3 3.3
Ambulances 4.6 4.6
Social Housing 7.9 7.9
Children's Aid Societies (0.8) (0.8)
GO Trans~ 0.0 0.0
Transit. Operating and Capital 1.0 1.0
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.2 0.2
Septic Inspections 0.2 0.2
Policing 8.7 6.7
Provincial Offences Net Revenues . (0.9) (0.9)
-ilraries - , 0.2 0.2
?roperty Assessment 1.0 1.0
\1aOaged Forests I Conservation Lands 0.0 0.0
Fann Tax Rebate 0.1 0.1
3ross Receipts Taxes 0.9 0.9
Residential Education Tax Room /10.7\ /9.8\
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: r II 21.6 I II 22.4 ~
Post.WDW Municipal OWn-PulllOse Spending 144.7 144.7
Efficiencies by 2000.01 (9.8) (9.8)
(2.3% per year in each of nelCl3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies . 11.8 12.6
As % of Post.WOW Municipal Own.Purpose Spending 8.1 8.7
All figures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsiblilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF ctJSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Dufferin Countv
AltsrnatJve 1 Alternative 2
: I 50% of Ed. I Single Ed. Res.
I Res. TalClls Tax Rate
'.
Social Assistance 2.0 2.0
Chnd Care 0.2 0.2
Public Health 0.8 0.8
Ambulances 1.4 1.4
Social Housing 2.4 2.4
ChRdren's Aid Societies (0.3) (0.3)
GO Transn 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operating and Capital 0.1 0.1
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.0 0.0
Policing 2.0 2.0
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues . (0.2) (0.2)
Lbraries , 0.1 0.1
Property Assessment 0.5 0.5
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.7 0.7
Fann Tax Rebate 1.5 1.5
Gross Receipts T alCllS 0.4 0.4
Residential Education Tax Room {10.6\ (9.5\
IINet Change in Municqlal Costs I Revenues: ij II 0.8 ~ II 1.9 II
Post.WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spending 57.4 57.4
EffICiencies by 2QOO-01 (3.9) (3.9)
(2.3% per year in each of moo 3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies (3.1) (2.0)
As % of Post.WOW Municipal Own.Purpose Spendilg (5.3) . (3.5)
All figUres are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsibBilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable. ".
5
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS ANii REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Durham R~ion
Alternative 1 Alt8l'tllJtive 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxss Tax Rate
.'
Social !>ssistance 27.1 27.1
ChDd 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
Trans~ . Operating and Capital 5.4 5.4
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.2 0.2
Policing 0.0 0.0
Provincial Offences Net Revenues . (1.7) (1.7)
Lilraries . 0.7 0.7
Property Assessment 4.5 4.5
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 1.1 1.1
Farm Tax Rebate 4.9 4.9
Gross Receipts Taxss 3.4 3.4
Residential Education Tax Room (106.0\ (102.8\
[INet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: ij II 17.9 I ~" 21.2 I
Post.WOW Municipal Own,PuJ1lOse Spending 608.3 608.3
Efficiencies by ~1 . (41.1) (41.1)
(2.3% per year in each of next 3 years)
WOW Net Change After EffICiencies (23.1) (19.8)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending (3.8) (3.3)
All figures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsilDiIies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable. .,
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF'COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Elgin County
AltertlBtJve 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 4.5 4.5
Child Care 0.3 0.3
Public Health 2.2 2.2
Ambulances 1.8 1.8
Social Housing 3.3 3.3
Children's Aid Societies (0.5) (0.5)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit- Operating and Capital 0.3 0.3
Ferries 0.0 0.0
AiIports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0~1 0.1
Policing 4.2 4.2
ProvinciaJ Offences Net Revenues (0.5) (0.5)
Lilraries . 0.2 0.2
,
Property Assessment 0.8 0.8
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands, 0.1 0.1
Fann Tax Rebate 3.1 3.1
Gross Receipts T axss 0.8 0.8
Residential Education Tax Room 111.9\ (11.0\
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ II 8.9 ~ II 9.8 ij
Post.WOW Municipal Own.Purpose Spending 101.6 101.6
Efficiencies by 2000.01 (6.9) (6.9)
(2.3% per year in each of ne1ll3 years)
WDW Net Change After Efficiencies 2.0 2.9
As % of Post-WDW Mun~ Own-Purpose Sp~ 2.0 2.9
~
All figures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsilDilies and related changes may
require lhe approval of the Legislature, where applicable. ~,
7
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
ESsex County
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Silgle Ed. Res.
Res. Taxss Tax Rate
.
Social Assistance 25.0 25.0
Chad Care 2.0 2.0
Public Health 6.7 6.7
Ambulances 7:3 7.3
Social Housilg 16.7 16.7
Children's Aid Societies (2.6) (2.6)
GO Trans~ 0.0 0.0
Transi - Operati1g and Capital 3:3 3.3
Ferries 32 32
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policilg . . 2.8 2.8
Provincial Offences Net Revenues . (3.5) (3.5)
Ulraries , 0.6 0.6
Property Assessment 3.5 3.5
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Fann TaxRebale 4.6 4.6
Gross Receipts Taxss 32 32
ResidentiaJ Education Tax Room 171.6\ 170.1\
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ i 1.7 ~ II., 32 I
Post.WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg 559.4 559.4
Efficiencies by 200Q.01 (37.8) (37.8)
(2.3% per year iI each of nellt 3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficlencies (36.1) (34.6)
As % of Post.WOW Municipal awn-Purpose SpenQilg (6.5) (62)
All flQlU9S are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsilililies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable. "
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POTENTIAL AllOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Frontenac County
A1tamsttve 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 14.6 14.6
ChDd Care 0.7 0.7
Public Health 3.5 3.5
Ambulances 1.3 1.3
Social Housing 8.0 8.0
ChDdren's Aid Societies (1.0) (1.0)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operating and Capital 3.3 3.3
Ferries 5.8 5.8
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
POIici1g 3.7 3.7
Provincial Offences Net Revenues (0.7) (0.7)
Lbraries 0.3 0.3
,
Property Assessment 1.6 1.6
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Fann Tax Rebate 0.6 0.6
Gross Receipts Taxes 1.3 1.3
Residential Education Tax Room (31.51 (30.9)
iNet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: l [I 12.0 ( II 12.6 ~
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 192.6 192.6
Efficiencies by ~1 (13.0) (13.0)
(2.3% per year i1 each of next 3 years)
WOW Net Change Atter Efficiencies (1.0) (0.4)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending (0.5) (0.2)
All figures are eslinates. See accompanyng notes. Transfer of responsibUitIes and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable.
9
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Grev County
Altlll'lUltive 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Silgle Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
,
-
Social Assistance 6.2 6.2
Chad Care 0.5 0.5
Public Health 1.8 1.8
Ambulances 4.4 4.4
Social Housilg 4.7 4.7
Chadren's Aid Societies (0.5) (0.5)
GO Trans. 0.0 0.0
h"ransil. Operatilg and Capital 0.6 0.6
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic InspecIions 0.2 0.2
Policilg 5.7 5.7
ProviIcial Offences Net Revenues (0.6) (0.6)
Lilraries . 0.2 0.2
.
Property Assessment 1.3 1.3
Managed Forests I Conservation lands 0.7 0.7
Farm Tax Rebate 2.5 2.5
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.9 0.9
Residential Education Tax Room (21.3\ (20.7)
IINet Change il Municipal Costs I Revenues: I II 7.5 I II 8.2 ~
Post.WOW Municipal awn-Purpose Spendilg 131.2 131.2
EffICiencies by 2000'()1 (8.9) (8.9)
(2.3% per year il each of n8lCl3 years)
WOW Ne1 Change After Bficiencies (1.3) (0.7)
jJ.s % of Post-WOW Municipal awn-Purpose Spen~i1g (1.0) (0.5)
All fIgUres are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsilaities and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable. "
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
II
,
:1
II
:-
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OFCOSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Haldimand - Norfolk Reaion
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Si1gle Ed. Res.
Res. TlIXllS Tax Rate
Social Assistance 5.8 5.8
Chad Care 0.2 0.2
Public Health 2.4 2.4
Ambulances 2.2 2.2
Social Housi1g 25 25
Children's Aid Societies (0.6) (0.6)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Trans~ - Operati'lg and Capital 0.0 0.0
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Ai!ports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
POlici1g 7.S 75
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues (1.1) (1.1)
Lilraries , 0.2 0.2
Property Assessment 1.2 1.2
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Fann Tax Rebate 9.4 9.4
Gross Receipts TlIXllS 0.9 0.9
Residential Education Tax Room 121.71 (23.21
IINet Change i1 Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ II 9.2 I II 7.8 ~
Post-WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spendi1g 127.6 127.6
Efficiencies by 2000-01 (8.6) (8.6)
(2.3% per year i1 each of n8llt 3 years)
WDW Net Change After Efficiencies 0.6 (0.8)
As % of Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spe~i1g 05 (0.7)
All figures are esti'na1es. See accompanyilg notes. Transter of responsiliilies and related changes may
require l1e approval of the Legislature, where applicable.
11
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT'
$ Million
Haliburton County
Alt8l'IIIJtive 1 Alternative 2
50% 01 Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 1.5 1.5
Child Care 0.1 0.1
Public Health 0.4 0.4
Ambulances 0.0 0.0
Social Housilg 1.0 1.0
Children's Aid Societies (0.1) (0.1)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
rrransil- Operatitg and Capital 0.0 0.0
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Aitports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
POlicing 2.0 2.0
Provincial Offences Net Revenues 0.0 0.0
Li:lraries . 0.1 0.1
,
Property Assessment 0.6 0.6
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands . 0.7 0.7
Fann Tax Rebate 0.0 0.0
Gross Rece~ Taxes 0.3 0.3
Residential Education Tax Room (6.6\ (5.4\
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: ij i 0.1 ( II 1.3 II
Post-WOw Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 27~ 27.3
Efficiencies by 2QOO.01 (1.8) (1.8)
(2.3% per year in each of nEllCl 3 years)
WDW Net Change After EffICiencies (1.7) (0.6)
M % of Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spen~g (6.4) (2.1)
All figures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsiblities and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
i
II
il
II
I
II
,
II
'...1
,
.
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Halton Reaion
AItIll1llltive 1 Alternative 2
I 50% of Ed. I Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxas Tax Rate
.
Social Assistance 35.9 35.9
Chftd Care 3.4 3.4
Public Health 7.7 7.7
Ambulances 7.6 7.6
Social Housing 40.9 40.9
Chftdren's Aid Societies (1.8) (1.8)
GO Transit 22.4 22.4
Transit- Operamg and Capital 4.4 4.4
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.0 0.0
Polmg G.O 0.0
ProvilciaJ Offences Net Revenues (1.5) (1.5)
lillaries . 0.5 0.5
Property Assessment , 4.0 4.0
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands '0.4 0.4
Fann Tax Rebate 1.4 1.4
Gross RllCllipts Taxas 2.3 2.3
Residential Education Tax Room (93.81 (82.01
'INet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ II 33.9 ( ~ 45.8 ~
Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose SPending 539.0 539.0
Efficiencies by 2OOQ.01 (36.4) (36.4)
(2.3% per year n each of n9lCl3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies (2.5) 9.4
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendng (0.5) 1.7
All figures are esti'nates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of I'8SpOOSilHiIies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable.
13
POTE~TlAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Hamilton. Wentworth Reaion
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
, 50% of Ed. Silgle Ed. Res.
. Res. TalCIlS Tax Rate
SClCiaI Assistance 50.1 50.1
ChUd Care 2.2 2.2
Public Health 10.7 10.7
Ambulances 9.0 9.0
Social Housilg 31.9 31.9
Children's Aid Societies (3.5) (3.5)
GO Transit 1.9 1.9
Transit- Operatilg and Capital 17.2 17.2
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.2 0.2
Polici1g 0.0 0.0
Provilcial Offences Net Revenues . (2.6) (2.6)
Ulraries , 0.9 0.9
Property Assessment 4.7 4.7
Managed Forests f Conservation Lands 0.2 0.2
Fann Tax Rebate 2.6 2.6
Gross Receipts Taxes 4.7 4.7
Residential Education Tax Room 193.0\ (89.81
~Net Change il Municipal Costs f Revenues: ( ~ 37.2 ~ II 40.4 II
Post.WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg 852.1 852.1
Efficiencies by ~1 (57.5) (57.5)
(2.3% per year il each of next 3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies (20.3) (17.1)
As % of .Post.WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg (2.4) (2.0)
All figures are estlnates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of r9S1lOllsibUilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable.
14
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
!
II
I
,
il
II
,
II
II
II
POTENTlALALi-OCATlON OF' COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Hastinas County
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
"
Social Assistance 13.8 13.8
Chad Care 0.5 0.5
Public Health 3.0 3.0
Ambulances 4,1 4.1
Social Housilg 6.2 6.2
ChUdren's Aid Societies (1.1) (1.1)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit- Operalilg and Capital 0.6 0.6
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Ailports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
POlicilg 6.9 6.9
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues (0.4) (0.4)
l.iJraries , 0.2 0.2
Property Assessment 1.4 1.4
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.4 . 0.4
Fann Tax Rebate 1.2 1.2
Gross Receipts Taxes 1.2 1.2
Residential Education Tax Room 123.2\ 123.1\
IINet Change il Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ II 15.0 f II 15.0 ~
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 172.9 172.9
EffICiencies by 2OQO.01 (11.7) (11.7)
(2.3% per year il each of next 3 years)
WOW Net Change After Elliciencies 3.3 3.4
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own.Purpose Spendilg 1.9 1.9
All figUres are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsblilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable.
15
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OFCOSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Huron County
AlterrJlJtive 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Sitgle Ed. Res.
Res.TalCllS Tax Rate
,
Social Jl.ssistance 3.0 3.0
Child Care 02 02
Public Health 1.5 1.5
Ambulances 2.6 2.6
Social Housilg 1.1 1.1
ChDdren's Aid Societies (0.4) (0.4)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Trans~ - Operatilg and Capital 0.0 0.0
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 02 02
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policing 3.0 3.0
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues (0.4) (0.4)
Lilraries . 02 02
,
Properly Assessment 0.8 0.8
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Farm Tax Rebate 5.8 5.8
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.6 0.6
Residential Education Tax Room 113.8\ (14.0\
~Net Change it Municipal Costs I Revenues: I I 4.4 ( II 42 ~
Post-WOw Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 80.1 80.1
Elficiencies by 2000-01 (5:4) (5.4)
(2.3% per year it each of n8lCl 3 years)
WOW Net Change After effICiencies (1.1) (12)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spandfig (1.3) (1.5)
All figures are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsi:liities and related changes may
require the approval of the LegislatUre. where applicable. -,
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
II
I
II
il
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Kenora District
AItIlnllJtive 1 Alt8l1llltive 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. T lIXIlS Tax Rate
Social Assistance 2.0 2.0
Child Care 0.6 0.6
Public Health 2.1 2.1
Ambulances 1.7 1.7
Social Housing 4.3 4.3
ChRdren's Aid Societies (1.3) (1.3)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0.
Transit - Operamg and Capital 0.2 0.2
Ferries 0.1 0.1
Airports 0.2 0.2
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
PoIici1g 6.6 6.6
Provincial Offences Net Revenues (0.6) (0.6)
Lilraries , 0.1 0.1
Property Assessment 0.6 0.6
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands, 0.0 0.0
Farm Tax Rebate 0.0 0.0
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.6 0.6
Residential Education Tax Room (4.8) (4.2)
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: II.. II 12.5 ~ [I 13.2 ~
Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 79.7 79.7
Efficiencies by 2OOl).()1 (5.4) (5.4)
(2.3% per year in each of nSlCl3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies 7.2 7.8
As % of Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 9.0 9.8
All figures are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of reeponsilDilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable. '
17
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Kent County
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. TalIllS Tax Rate
.
Social Assistance 8.8 8.8
Child Care 0.8 0.8
Public Health 2.5 2.5
Ambulances 2.5 2.5
Social Housing 4.8 4.8
Children's Aid Societies (0.8) (0.8)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit- Operating and Capila1 0.5 0.5
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policing 3.9 3.9
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues (1.0) (1.0)
Lbraries , 0.2 0.2
Property Assessment 1.0 1.0
Managed Forests I ConseMrtion Lands 0.1 0.1
Farm Tax Rebate 7.8 7.8
Gross Receipts TalIllS 1.1 1.1
Residentia1 Education Tax Room 119.7\ 120.2\
!INet Change in Municipa1 Costs I Revenues: ~ .. \1 12.6 ij jl. 12.1 l
Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 149.4 149.4
effICiencies by 2OOO.Q1 (10.1) (10.1)
(2.3% per year in each of nexl3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies 2.5 2.0
As % of Post-WOW Munic~ Own-Purpose Spending 1.7 1.3
All flQUf8S are estinates. See accompanying notes. . Transfer of responsilDilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legis\atUre, where applicable;
18
I
.
I
I
.
.
.,
I
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
I
il
!
II
:
,
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Lambton COunty
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 8.9 8.9
ChUd Care 0.7 0.7
Public Health 2.7 2.7
Ambulances 3.8 3.8
Social Housing 3.1 3.1
ChUdran's Aid Societies (2.1) (2.1)
GO Transa 0.0 0.0
Transa - Operating and Capital 0.9 0.9
Ferries 0.0 0.0
AiIports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.0 0.0
Policing 5.5 55
ProllilciaJ Offences Net Revenues (1.1) (1.1)
LiJraries , 0.3 0.3
Property Assessment 1.4 1.4
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.0 0.0
Farm Tax Rebate 4.7 4.7
Gross Receipts Taxes 1.3 1.3
Residential Education Tax Room 124.8) 124.51
IINet Change in Mun~ Costs I Revenues: ~ [I 5.2 ~ II 5.5 ij
. 187.2
Post-WOW Munic~ Own-Purpose Spendilg 187.2
Efficiencies by 200().()1 (12.6) (12.6)
(2.3% per year in each of next 3 years)
Iwow Net Change After Efficiencies (7.4) (7.2)
As % of Post-WDW Mun~ Own-Purpose ~i1g (4.0) (3.8)
All figures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsibUilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislatura. where applicable.
19
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Lanark County
Alternative 1 A/t.,.native 2
50% of Ed. Si1gle Ed. Res.
Res. Taxss Tax Rate
"
-
Social Assistance 4.8 4.8
ChUd Care 0.3 , 0.3
Public Health 1,3 1.3
Ambulances 2.1 2.1
Social Housi19 2.6 2.6
ChUdren's Aid Societies (0.6) (0.6)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit- Operatilg and Capital 0.0 0.0
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Polici1g 2.6 2.6
provilcial Offences Net Revenues (0.5) (0.5)
LilrarieS . 0.1 0.1
,
Property Assessment 0.7 0.7
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 02 02
Farm Tax Rebate 0.5 0.5
Gross Rece~ts Taxss 0.6 0.6
Residential Education Tax Room 111.1\ 19.5\
\INet Change i1 Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ II 3.9 I ..1\ 5.6 II
Post-WOw Municipal own-Purpose Spending 76.3 76.3
EffICiencies by 2000-01 (5.1) (5.1)
(2.3% per year i1 each of neJCl3 years)
!wOW Net Change After Efficiencies (12) 0.5
ft.s % of Post-WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose SPen9i1g (1.6) 0.6
All flQW1lS are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsbBities and related changes may
require the approval of the legislatUre, where applicable. -,
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
jl
II
,
I
II
II
,
!
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Leeds & Grenville County
AItenJative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Sngle Ed. Res.
Res.TllXIIlS Tax Rate
Social Assistance 6.0 6.0
Chid Care 0.3 0.3
Public Health 2.2 2.2
Ambulances 6.8 6.8
Social Housng 2.5 2.5
Children's Aid Societies (0.9) (0.9)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operatilg and Capilal 0.2- 0.2
Fenies 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic inspections 0.2 0.2
Policilg . . 6.4 6.4
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues (1.1) (1.1)
Li:lraries , 0.2 0.2
Property Assessment 1.2 1.2
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Fann Tax Rebate 0.7 0.7
Gross Receipts TllXIIlS 0.9 0.9
Residential Education Tax Room (16.61 (14.11
flNet Change n MunicipaJ Costs I Revenues: I i 9.0 i ~ 11.4 ~
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendng 122.6 122.6
BfICiencies by ~1 (8.3) (8.3)
(2.3% per year n each of next 3 years)
WOW -Net Change After EffIciencies 0.7 3.2
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-PUIpOS8 Spendilg 0.5 2.6
All flQlIr8S are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsi)liIes and related changes may
requi'e 1I1e approval of 1I1e Legislature, where applicable.
21
POTENllAL ALLOCAll0N OFCOSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Lennox and Addinaton County
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Silgle Ed. Res.
Res. TalCIlS Tax Rate
Social A ssist;once 3.5 35
Chid Care 0.1 0.1
Public Health 1.0 1.0
Ambulances 0.1 0.1
Social Housing 1.0 1.0
Chftdren's Aid Societies (0.2) (0.2)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operalilg and Capilal 0.0 0.0
Ferries 1.4 1.4
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.0 0.0
Policing . . 3.7 3.7
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues , (1.0) (1.0)
Lilraries , 0.1 0.1
Property Assessment 0.5 0.5
Managed ForeslS I Conservation Lands' 0.0 0.0
Fann Tax Rebate 0.7 0.7
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.3 0.3
Residential Education Tax Room /7.1\ r6.4\
~Net Change in Municipa1 Costs I Revenues: I . ~ 4.2 ~ II 4.9 II
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg 46.8 46.8
Efficiencies by 200().()1 (3.2) (3.2)
(2.3% per year il each of next 3 years)
WDW Net Change After Efficiencies 1.1 1.8
As % of Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendi1g 2.3 3.8
All figures are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsillilies and related changes may
require the approval of the LegislatUre, where applicable. -.
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
t
II
t
I
II
,
II
!
,
,
II
,
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF'COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Manitoulin District
A1temstJve1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 0.5 0.5
Chad Care 0.2 0.2
Public Health 0.3 0.3
Ambulances 1.6 1.6
Social Housing 0.6 0.6
Chadren's Aid Societies (0.0) (0.0)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operatilg and Capilal 0.0 0.0
Ferries 0.0 0.0
AiIports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.0 0.0
Policing :to 2.0
Provilcial Offences Net Revenues . (0.1) (0.1)
Lilraries , 0.0 0.0
Property Assessment 0.3 0.3
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.0 0.0
Fann Tax Rebate 0.2 0.2
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.1 0.1
Residential Education Tax Room (1.8\ (1.5)
!INet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ II 4.1 I II 4.3 ~
Post-WOw Mun~ Own-Purpose Spending 25.1 25.1
EffICiencies by 2000-01 (1.7) (1.7)
(2.3% per year i1 each of ne1ll3 years)
WDW Net Change After Efficiencies 2.4 2.6
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 9.4 10.5
All fIgUres are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsi)HiIies and related changes may
require lhe approval of the Legislature, where applicable.
23
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Middlesex Coun
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Sl'Igle Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
-'
Social Assistance 35.9 35.9
Child Care 2.7 2.7
PU!llic Health 82 82
Ambulances 5.9 5.9
Social Housl'lg 19.4 19.4
Chftdren's Aid Societies (3.1) (3.1)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit- Operamg and Capital 6.7 6.7
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Ai'ports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections q.1 0.1
Policl'lg 62 62
Provilcia! Offences Net Revenues , (2.7) (2.7)
,
Ulraries 0.8 0.8
Property Assessment 4.2 42
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Fann Tax Rebate 5.4 5.4
Gross Receipts Taxes 32 32
Residential Education Tax Room (902\ (972)
IINet Change 1'1 Municipal Costs I Revenues: I ~ 2.8 ~ II (42) I
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendl'lg 525.0 525.0
BflCiencies by 2000-01 (35.4) (35.4)
(2.30/0 per year 1'1 each of next 3 years)
Wow Net Change After Efficlencies (32.6) (39.6)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendl'lg (62) (7.6)
All figures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsiliilies and related changes may
require \he approval of the Legislature. where applicable. '
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
.
II
\
II
II
i
II
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Muskoka District
AIfemative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. TaxllS Tax Rate
Social Assistance 3.8 3.8
Chid Care 0.2 0.2
Public Health 1.5 1.5
Ambulances 2.8 2.8
Social Housing 1.9 1.9
Chidren's Aid Societies (0.3) (0.3)
GO Trans~ 0.0 0.0
Trans~ - Operatilg and Capital 0.0 0.0
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections Q.2 0.2.
Policing 8.7 8.7
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues (0.4) (0.4)
Lbraries < 0.2 0.2
Property Assessment 1.4 1.4
Managed Forests I Conservation Landli 1.5 1.5
Farm Tax Rebate 0.0 0,0
Gross Receipts TaxllS 0.9 0.9
Residential Education Tax Room (26.5\ (23.3\
~Net Change i'I Munic~ Costs I Revenues: , ! (4.2) ~ II (1.0) ~
Post-WOw Municipal OWn-Purpose Spending 117.8 117.8
Efficiencies by 200().()1 (8.0) (8.0)
(2.3% per year i'I each of nex! 3 years)
WOW Net Change After EffICiencies (12.2) (8.9)
As % of Post-WOW Munic~ OWn-Purpose Spendi'lg (10.3) (7.6)
All figllres are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsiJiliIies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable. _.
25
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Shgle Ed. Res.
Res. Taxss Tax Rate
Social Assistance 36.4 36.4
Child Care 2.0 2.0
Public HeaIlh 7.8 7.8
Ambulances 7.5 7.5
Social Housing 27.4 27.4
Chftdren's Aid Societies (2.1) (2.1)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
ransil - Operamg and Capila1 4.1 4.1
Ferries 0.0 0.0
AIr1lorts 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections Q.1 0.1
Polichg 0.0 0.0
Provilcial Offences Net Revenues (2.1) (2.1)
Lbraries 0.8 0.8
Property Assessment 4.2 4.2
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.3 0.3
Fann Tax Rebate 4.2 4.2
Gross Receipts Taxss 4.7 4.7
Residential Education Tax Room .3 82.4
~Net Change il Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ II 18.0 i II 13.0 ij
Post.WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spendilg 607.1 607.1
Efficiencies by 2000-01 (41.0) (41.0)
(2.3% per year h each of n6lCl S years)
WOW Net Change After effICiencies (22.9) (28.0)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendhg (3.8) (4.6)
All (1QUI'8S are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsilUilles and related changes t"ay
require the approval of the legislatUre, where applicable. '
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
:11
,
~
II
!
II
1
i
II
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Nioissin District
Altlll1llJtivrl1 Altemstive 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 10.9 10.9
Chid Care 0.6 0.6
Public Heafth 2.7 2.7
Ambulances 1.8 1.8
Social Housing 7.6 7.6
ChBdren's Aid Societies (0.5) (0.5)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
TranSit - Operali'lg and Capital 1.3 1.3
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections q.O 0.0
Policing 3.0 3.0
Provi1cial Offences Net RlIVlInues . (0.5) (0.5)
Lilraries , 02 02
Property Assessment 1.0 1.0
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.0 0.0
Fann Tax Rebate J2 02
Gross Receipts Taxes 1.1 1.1
Residential Education Tax Room 112.61 111.5)
~Net Change in Municipal Costs f Revenues: ij II 16.7 IJ [/ 17.8 ij
Post-WOw Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 122.4 122.4
Efficiencies by 200Q.()1 (8.3) (8.3)
(2.3% per year in each of next 3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies 8.5 9.6
M % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendi'lg 6.9 7.8
All figures are estmates. See accompanyng notes. Transfer of responsbBilies and related changes may
requirll1he approval of the Legislature. where applicable. _.
27
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Northumberland Countv
Anernat/ve 1 Anernstlve 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes TaxRale
'.
Social Assistance 4.7 4.7
Chnd Care 0.4 0.4
Public Health 1,9 1.9
Ambulances 2.5 2.5
Social Housing 8.2 8.2
ChUdren's Aid Societies (0.5) (0.5)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit. Operating and Capital 0.2 0.2
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policing 5.7 5.7
Provincial Offences Net Revenues , (1.1) (1.1)
Lilraries , 0.2 0.2
Property Assessment 1.0 1.0
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Fann Tax Rebate 1.8 1.8
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.7 0.7
Residential Education Tax Room 118.4\ 119.6\
liNe! Change in Municipal Costs f Revenues: II ~ 7.2 l II 6.1 1\
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 123.1 123.1
Efficiencies by 2QOO'()1 (8.3) (8.3)
(2.30/0 per year n each of next 3 years)
WDW Net Change After Efficiencies (1.1) (2.2)
As % of Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending (0.9) (1.8)
All figUres are estinales. See accompanyi'lg notes. Transfer of responsilnilies and related changes may
require lhe approval of lhe Legislature, where applicable. .,
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
II
;
I
II
II
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF'COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Ottawa.- Carleton Region
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Silgle Ed. Res.
Res. r_ Tax Rate
Social Assistance 72.3 72.3
ChBd Care 5.3 5.3
Public Health 14.2 14.2
Anibulances 6.1 6.1
Social Housng 64.1 64.1
ChBdren's Aiel Societies (6.7) (6.7)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
TransK-OpemtingandCapmd 62.1 62.1
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections Q.l 0.1
Policilg 0.0 0.0
Provincial Offences Net Revenues (2.5) (2.5)
Lilraries 1.4 1.4
Property Assessment 8.0 8.0
Managed Forests I Conservation lands 0.4 0.4
Fann Tax Rebate 1.7 1.7
Gross Receipts T_ 8.1 8.1
Residential Education Tax Room (186.1\ (209.7)
IINet Change il Municipal Costs I Revenues: II II 48.4 ~ ' II 24.8 ~
.
Post-WOw Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg 1,561.4 1,561.4
Efficiencies by 2~1 (105.4) (105.4)
(2.3% per year i1 each of nm 3 years)
WOW Net Change After effICiencies (57.0) (80.6)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendirig (3.7) (5.2)
All figures are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsbiilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legisfature, where applicable. '.
29
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Oxford County
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 6.0 6.0
ChUd Care 0.4 0.4
Public Health 2.0 2.0
Ambulances 2.5 2.5
Social Housing 3.0 3.0
Chftdren's Aid Societies (0.6) (0.6)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit- Operatilg and Capital 0.4 0.4
Ferries 0.0 0.0
AiIports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policilg 3.5 3.5
Provilcial Offences Net Revenues . (0.9) (0.9)
,
Lilraries 0.2 0.2
Property Assessment 1.0 1.0
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.0 0.0
Fann Tax Rebate 4.7 4.7
Gross Receipts Taxss 1.0 1.0
Resiclential Education Tax Room 117.7l /16.8\
~Net Change il Municipal Costs I Revenues: I .~ 5.8 ij II. 6.7 1\
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 133.1 133.1
Efficiencies by 2()()O.()1 (9.0) (9.0)
(2.3% per year il each of nexl3 years)
WOW Net Change After effICiencies (3.2) (2.3)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal own-Purpose Spending (2.4) (1.7)
All figures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsbUities and related changes may
require the approval of the LegislatUre. where applicable. "
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'c.
I t
!
,
I
I POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
I $ Million
Farrv Sound District
I Altematin 1 Alternative 2
I 50% of Ed. Silgle Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
I Social Assistance 4.2 4.2
Chid Care 0.2 0.2
I Public Health 1.3 1.3
Ambulances 1.0 1.0
Social Housilg 1.1 1.1
ChUdren's Aid Societies (0.3) (0.3)
, I GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit- Operatilg and Capital 0.0 0.0
Ferries 0.0 0.0
I Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections Q.2 0.2
'I Policilg 4.1 4.1
Provi1clal Offences Net Revenues . (0.4) (0.4)
Lbraries , 0.2 0.2
Property Assessment 1.0 1.0
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.3 0.3
I Fann Tax Rebate 0.1 0.1
Gross Receipts Taxes 05 0.5
I Residential Education Tax Room /105\ (8.5\
IINet Change il Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ ~ 3.1 ~ ~ 5.1 II
I
Post-WDW Mun~ OWn-Purpose Spending 58.2 58.2
, I Efficiencies by 2000.Q1 (3.9) (3.9)
(2.3% per year il each of nelll 3 years)
WDW Net Change After Efficiencies (0.9) 1.1
; As % of Post-wow Municipal Own-PurposeSpendilg (15) 1.9
I All flQlll8S are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsilililies and related changes '!lay
requinl1he approval of the Legislature, where applicable. ;
I
I
I 31
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
-
$ Million
P'eel Reaion
Altfll'lltltive 1 Altemstlve 2
50% of Ed. Silgle Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes TaxRale
. . ~
Social Assistance 77.5 77.5
ChDd Care 9.2 I 9.2
Public Health 18.1 18.1
Ambulances 17.6 17.6
Social Housilg 94.6 94.6
ChDdren's Aid Societies (3.0) (3.0)
GO Transit 33.4 33.4
Trans~ . Operatilg and Capital 19.8 19.8
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.0 0.0
Policilg 0.0 0.0
Provincial Offences Net Revenues . (6.4) (6.4)
Lilraries , 1.1 1.1
Property Assessment 9.1 9_1
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.2 0.2
Farm Tax Rebate 1.6 1.6
Gross Receipts Taxes 4.4 4.4
Resklential Education Tax Room (229.9\ (246.5\
llNet Change il MWlicipal Costs I Revenues: ij II 47.4 I II 30.7 ~
Post.WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg 1,269.7 1 ,269.7
Sficiencies by 2OQO'()1 (85.7) (85.7)
(2.3% per year il each of nexl3 years) .
WOW Net Change After Bliciencies (38.4) (55.0)
k> % of Post-WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spendilg (3.0) (4.3)
All figures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsibDities and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable. -,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Perth County
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 2.2 2.2
Child Care 0.2 0.2
Public Health 1.7 1.7
Ambulances 2.4 2.4
Social Housing 2.7 2.7
Children's Aid Societies (0.4) (0.4)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operating and Capital 0.6 0.6
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policilg 2.1 2.1
Provincial Offences Net Revenues (0.5) (0.5)
Lilraries , 0.1 0.1
Property Assessment 0.8 0.8
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.0 0.0
Fann Tax Rebate 4.0 4.0
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.7 0.7
Residential Education Tax Room 113.6\ 113.2\
IINet Change il Municipal Costs I Revenues: II II 3.5 ij II 3.9 II
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg 90.5 90.5
Bficiencies by 2000.01 (6.1) (6.1)
(2.3% per year in each of nm 3 years)
WOW Net Change After EffICiencies (2.6) (2.2)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Sp8l]dilg (2.9) (2.5)
All flglU1lS are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsiJDilIes and related changes may
require 1I1e approval of the Legislature. where applicable. -.
33
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
SMillion
PeterllorouQh County
!
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
.,
-...
Social Assistance 10.8 10.8
Chftd Care 0.8 0.8
Public Health 2.8 2.8
Ambulances 2.0 2.0
Social Housing 6.9 6.9
Children's Aid Societies (1.0) (1.0)
GO Trans~ 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operating and Capital 1.1 1.1
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policing 5.7 5.7
Provincial Offences Net Revenues (1.0) (1.0)
Libraries , 0.3 0.3
Property Assessment 1.6 1.6
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.2 0.2
Farm Tax Rebate 1.6 1.6
Gross Receipts Taxes 1.2 1.2
Residential Education Tax Room 128.6\ 126.6\
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ ~ 4.6 ~ II. 6.6 II
Post-WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spending 1605 1605
Efficiencies by 2000.01 (10.8) (10.8)
(2.3% per year in each of nexl3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies (6.3) (4.2)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending (3.9) (2.6)
All figures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsilUities and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable. "
34
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
11
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Prescott and Russell Coun
AItBl7llltiv8 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res.Taxss Tax Rate
Social Assistance 5.5 5.5
Chid Care 0.2 0.2
Public Health 1.8 1.8
Ambulances 2.7 2.7
Social Housing 2.3 2.3
ChHdren's Aid Societies (0.8) (0.8)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operati'lg and Capital 0.0 0.0
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policilg 4.7 4.7
Provilcial Offences Net Revenues (0.4) (0.4)
LiJraries . 0.1 0.1
Property Assessment 0.7 0.7
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Farm Tax Rebate 2.4 2.4
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.9 0.9
Residential Education Tax Room (13.0\ (13.2\
IINet Change il Municipal Costsl Revenues: ~ II 7.3 II [I 7.1 ~
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg 94.6 94.6
Bficiencies by 200Q.01 (6.4) (6.4)
(2.3% per year in each of nexl3 years)
WOW Net Change After Bficiencies 0.9 0.8 I
As % of Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose SpenQing 1.0 0.8
All fl!lures are eslinates. See accompanyi'lg notes. Transfer of responsililities and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable. -
35
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Prince E'dward County
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res,
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 2.0 2.0
ChDd Care 0.1 0.1
Public Health 0.6 0.6
Ambulances 0.0 0.0
Social Housilg 0.5 0.5
ChDdren's Aid Societies (0.2) (0.2)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operating and Capital 0.0 0.0
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.0 0.0
Policing 1.4 1.4
Provincial Offences Net Revenues . (0.2) (0.2)
Lilraries . 0.1 0.1
Property Assessment 0.3 0.3
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.0 0.0
Fann Tax Rebate 0.5 0.5
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.2 0.2
Residential Education Tax Room 14.9\ 14.2\
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: i ~ 0.5 II [I... 1.3 ~
,-
Post-WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spending 30.1 30.1
Efficiencies by 2000~1 (2.0) (2.0)
(2.3% per year in each of naxl3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies (1.5) (0.8)
As % of Post-WDW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spending (0.0) (2.6)
.
All figUres are estmates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsilDities and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable. -
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Rainv River District
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% 01 Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 1.3 1.3
Chad Care 0.2 0.2
Public Health 0.8 0.8
Ambulances 0.6 0.6
Social Housing 1.6 1.6
Chndren's Aid Societies (0.4) (0.4)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit- Operating and Capital 0.1 0.1
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic klspections 0.0 0.0
Policing 0.6 0.6
Provilcial Offences Net Revenues (0.2) (0.2)
Libraries , 0.0 0.0
Property Assessment 0.3 0.3
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.0 0.0
Fann Tax Rebate 0.2 0.2
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.3 0.3
Residential Education Tax Room /2.1\ (2.0\
IINet Change in Mun~ Costs I Revenues: ~ ~ 3.4 i II 3.6 I]
Post-WOW Munic~ Own-Purpose Spending 36.4 36.4
Eftic~sby2000'()1 (2.5) (2.5)
(2.3% per year in each 01 nelCl 3 years)
r,vDW Net Change Alter Efficiencies 1.0 1.1
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Sp~ilg 2.7 3.0
All ligures are estmates. See accompanying notes. Transfer 01 responsibUilies and related changes may
require lI1e approval of the Legislature, where applicable. -.
37
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1, 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Renfrew County
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 7.4 7:4
ChHd Care 0.3 0.3
Public Health 2.9 2.9
Ambulances 4.6 4.6
Social Housing 3.2 32
ChRdren's Aid Societies (0.6) (0.6)
GO Transn 0.0 0.0
Transn ~ Operating and Capital 02 0.2
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.2 0.2
Policing 5.4 5.4
Provincial Offences Net Revenues . (1.0) (1.0)
Lbraries , 02 0.2
Property Assessment 1.1 1.1
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.2 0.2
Fann Tax Rebate 0.6 0.6
Gross Receipts Taxes 1.1 1.1
Residential Education Tax Room 115.0\ 112.8\
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ . ~ 10.9 ~ II 13.0 II
Post-WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spending 120.6 120.6
Efficiencies by 2000-01 (8.1) (8.1)
(2.3% per year in each of nexl3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies 2:1 4.9
As % of Post-WOW Municipal OWn-Purpose Spending 2.3 4.0
All figures are estimates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsibUitles and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable. -,
38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
jl
,.11
I
i
II
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Simcoe Coun
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
II 50% of Ed. II Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 22.9 22.9
ChUd Care 1.5 1.5
Public Health 6.6 6.6
Arilbulances 9.3 9.3
Social Housing 21.1 21.1
ChDdren's Aid Societies (1.4) (1.4)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operating and Capital 1.7 1.7
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.3 0.3
Septic Inspections 0.3 0.3
Polmg 1:3.6 13.6
Provincial Offences Net Revenues , (25) (25)
Libraries , 0.7 0.7
Property Assessment 4.0 4.0
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 1.7 1.7
Fann Tax Rebate 52 52
. Gross Receipts Taxes 2.5 2.5
Residential Education Tax Room 180.6\ .41
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ II 6.7 ij II 9.0 II
Post-WOw Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 454.9 454.9
Efficiencies by 2000-01 (30.7) (30.7)
(2.3% per year in each of next 3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies (24.0) (21.8)
As % of Post-WOw Municipal Own-Purpose Spend,"llg (5.3) (4.8)
All figures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsibUities and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable. ' .
39
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Stormont Dundas & Glen
Alternative f Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 11.9 11.9
Chad Care 0.4 0.4
Public Heal1h 2.7 2.7
Ambulances 2.1 2.1
Social Housing 5.4 5.4
Children's Aid Societies (1.1) (1.1)
GO Trans~ 0.0 0.0
ransft - Operati'lg and Capital 1.3 1.3
Femes 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Polici1g 5.9 5.9
Provilcial Offences Net Revenues (1.3) (1.3)
Libraries 02 02
Property Assessment 1,1 1.1
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.4 0.4
Farm Tax Rebate 2.9 2.9
Gross Receipts Taxes 12 12
Residential Education Tax Room 17.6 17.9
!INet Change in Mun~ Costs I Revenues: ~ II 15.7 II II 15.4 II
Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg 169.5 169.5
Bficiencies by 2OOO'()1 (11.4) (11.4)
(2.3% per year in each of next 3 years)
DW Net Change After Bficiencies 4.3 3.9
As % of Post.WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 2.5 2.3
All figures are estimates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsibDfties and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable. -
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
I AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
I $ Million
SUdbury District
I Alternative 1 Alternative 2
I 50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rale
"
I Social Assistance 1.1 1.1
ChRd Care 0.0 0.0
, Public Health 0.7 0.7
I Ambulances 0.8 0.8
Social Housing 0.8 0.8
i ChRdren's Aid Societies (02) (02)
I
, I GO Transit 0.0 0.0
Transit- Operating and Capital 0.0 0.0
, Fenies 0.0 0.0
I Airports 0.1 0.1
I Septic InspllCtions 0.0 0.0
Policilg 2.9 2.9
I Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues (0.1) (0.1)
I Ulraries , 0.1 0.1
Properly Assessment 0.3 0.3
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.0 0.0
'I Farm Tax Rebale 0.0 0.0
I Gross Receipts Taxes 0.3 0.3
:i Residential Education Tax Room 12.1\ 11.8\
l I
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: II ~ II II ~
4.9 52-
I Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 54.7 54.7
EffIciencies by 2OOO'()1 (3.7) (3.7)
I (2.3% per year in each of neld: 3 years)
WDW Net Change After Efflciencies 12- 1.5
1 As % of Post-WDW Munic\:lal Own-Purpose Spend,ing 22 2J
I I .
All flQures are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsbiities and related changes may
liKfIIire the approval of the Legislature, where applicable. . ,
I
I
41
I
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
SudbuI'V ReQion
Alt8lTllltive 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. TalCBs Tax Rate
.
. ."
Social Assistance 18.1 18.1
Chftd Care 0.8 0.8
Public Health 4.4 4.4
Ambulances 4.1 4.1
Social Housing 16.2 16.2
Children's Aid Societies (1.1) (1.1)
GO Trans~ 0.0 0.0
Transit - Operating and Capital 3.7 3.7
Ferries 0.0 0.0
AiIports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policing 0.0 0.0
Provincial Offences Net Revenues . (2.1) (2.1)
Lbraries < 0.4 0.4
Property Assessment 1.6 1.6
Managed Forests f Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Farm Tax Rebate 0.1 0.1
Gross Receipts Taxes 2.4 2.4
Residential Education Tax Room 126.3\ (23.71
IINet Change in Municipal Costs f Revenues: i ~ 22.6 ij II. 25.2 i
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 270.6 270.6
Efficiencies by 2()()()'()1 (18.3) (18.3)
(2.3% per year in each of nllld 3 years)
WOW Net Change After effICiencies 4.3 6.9
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spencfng 1.6 2.6
All fIgUres are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsililities and related changes may
require the approlllll of the Legislature. where applicable. -,
I
I
I POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT i
I $ Million
Thunder Bav District
I Alternative 1 Alternative 2
I 50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
I Res. Taxes Tax Rate
.-
, I Social Assistance 11.9 11.9
ChUd Care 0.9 0.9
i I Public Health 42 4,2
Ambulances 5.1 5.1
I Social Housing 15.5 15.5
ChUdren's Aid Societies (4.0) (4.0)
I GO Transit 0,0 0.0
Transit - Operating and Capital 3.7 3.7
Ferries 0.0 0.0
, 0.4
I Airports 0.4
Septic Inspections 0.1 0.1
Policing 4.6 4.6
i Provincial Offences Net Revenues (2.0) (2.0)
I Lilraries , 0.3 0.3
. Property Assessment 1.7 1.7
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
I I Farm Tax Rebate 02 0.2
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.6 0.6
i
! I Residential Education Tax Room 124.3\ (21.81
i [INet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: II [I ~ [I ~
! 19.0 21.5
II
Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 259.6 259.6
I
'II EffICiencies by 2000-01 (17.5) (17.5)
(2.3% per year in each of nexl3 years)
WDW Net Change After Efficiencies 1.5 4.0
. As % of Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 0.6 1.5
,
II All figures are estimates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsilHiIies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable. - ,
I
II
43
I
44
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
TimiskaminQ District
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res. Taxes Tax Rate
Social Assistance 3.3 3.3
ChUd Care 0.1 0.1
Public Health 1.8 1.8
Ambulances 1.9 1.9
Social Housing 1.7 1.7
ChUdren's Aid Societies (0.4) (0.4)
GO Transit 0.0 0.0
rransil- Operating and Capital 0.1 0.1
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.2 0.2
Policing 3.5 3.5
Provincial Offences Net Revenues . (0.4) (0.4)
Lilraries , 0.1 0.1
Property Assessment 0.5 0.5
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.0 0.0
Farm Tax Rebate 0.4 0.4
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.4 0.4
Residential Education Tax Room 13.9\ 13.9} .
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: ~ II 9.4 ~ \1.... 9.4 II
.
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 70.3 70.3
EffICiencies by 2000'()1 (4.7) (4.7)
(2.3% per year in each of next 3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies 4.7 4.7
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 6.7 6.7
All figul8S are estinates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of responsbBilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature. where applicable. '.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT I
,
$ Million I
I
Toronto
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Single Ed. Res.
Res.Taxes Tax Rate
"
Social Assistance 128.7 128.7
Chnd Care 4.7 4.7
Public Health 22.4 22.4
Ambulances 15.0 15.0
Social Housing 269.3 269.3
Chadren's Aid Societies (21.9) (21.9)
GO Transit 16.8 16.8
Transit- Operating and Capital 110.1 110.1
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0 I
Septic Inspections 0.0 0.0
Policitg 0.0 0.0 I
Provincial Offences Net Revenues (8.5) (8.5) !
Lilraries 4.2 4.2
Property Assessment , 28.5 28.5
Managed Forests I Conservation lands 0.0 0.0
Farm Tax Rebate 0.0 0.0
Gross Receipts Taxes 20.1 20.1
Residential Education Tax Room 1584.6) 1603.11
II Net Change it Mun~al Costs I Revenues: II II 4.8 ij II (13.6) ~
Post-WOw Municipal Own-Purpose Spenditg 4,915.9 4,915.9 I
Efficiencies by 2000.Q1 (331.9) (331.9) I
(2.3% per year it each of nlllCl3 years) I
WOW Net Change After EffICiencies (327.1) (345.5)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spenditg (6.7) (T.O)
All figures are estinates. See accompanyitg notes. Transfer of responsibDilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable.
45
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Victoria County
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Si1gle Ed. Res.
Res. T3lCBs Tax Rate
.-
Social Assistance 5.5 5.5
ChBd Care 0.1 0.1
Public Health 1.6 1.6
Ambulances 2.3 2.3
Social Housi1g 1.9 1.9
ChBdren's Aid Societies (0.3) (0.3)
GO TransK 0.0 0.0
TransK - Operati1g and CapKal 0.2 0.2
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.3 0.3
Polici1g 5.3 5.3
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues (0.4) (0.4)
lilraries . 0.2 0.2
<
Properly Assessment 1.0 1.0
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.3 0.3
Fann Tax Rebate 2.5 2.5
Gross Receipts Taxes 0.6 0.6
Residential Education Tax Room 119.6\ 121.2\
IINet Change in Municipal Costs I Revenues: I II 1.5 I] II. (0.1) i
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendi1g 83.2 83.2
Efficiencies by 2000-01 (5.6) (0.6)
(2.3% per year i1 each of nelCl3 years)
WOW Net Change After Efficiencies (4.1) (5".8)
As % of Post.WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending (5.0) (6.9)
All flgllres are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsibBiIies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable. -.
46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
i
II
II
I
i
II
i
II
I
II
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Waterloo Reaion
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
50% of Ed. Si1gle Ed. Res.
Res. T3lCBS Tax Rate
-
Social Assistance 27.7 27.7
Ohid Care 2.2 2.2
>'ublic Health 7.8 7.8
Ambulances 3.8 3.8
Social Housi1g 31.6 31.6
ChDdren's Aid Societies (2.6) (2.6)
GO TransK 0.0 0.0
TransK - Operali1g and CapKal 9.7 9.7
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.1 0.1
Septic Inspections 0.0 0.0
POlicilg 0.0 0.0
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues (2.9) (2.9)
lilraries 0.7 0.7
Properly Assessment , 4.0 4.0
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.1 0.1
Fann Tax Rebate 2.1 2.1
Gross Receipts T3lCBs 3.3 3.3
Residential Education Tax Room 178.6\ 173.4\
IINet Change i1 Municipal Costs I Revenues: II II 9.0 ~ II 14.2 !
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendi1g 656.1 656.1
EffICiencies by 2OOO~t (44.3) (44.3)
(2.3% per year il each of nelCl3 years)
WOW Net Change After EffICiencies (35.3) (30.1)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendi1g (5.4) (4.6)
All flgllres are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsibiilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable.
47
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
Wellin on Coun
Social Assistance
Chid Care
Public Health
Ambulances
Social Housi1g
Children's Aid Societies
GO Trend
Transit- Operati1g and CapKal
Ferries
Airports
Septic Inspections
Polici1g
Provi1ciaJ Offences Net Revenues
lilraries
Property Assessment
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands
Fann Tax Rebate
Gross Receipts T3lCBs
Residential Education Tax Room
IINet Change i1 Municipal Costs I Revenues:
II II
Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendi1g
Efficiencies by 2000-01
(2.3% per year i1 each of nelCl3 years)
WOW Net Change Alter Efficiencies
% of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spencfng
Alternative 1
50% of Ed.
Res. Taxes
7.7
0.8
3.2
3.4
11.8
(1.0)
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
5.1
(1.5)
0.3
1.9
0.6
3.8
1.2
35.2
3.5
237.4
(16.0)
(12.5)
(5.3)
Alternative 2
Si1gle Ed. Res.
Tax Rate
7.7
0.8
3.2
3.4
11.8
(1.0)
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
5.1
(1.5)
0.3
1.9
0.6
3.8
1.2
32.3
~ [I ..- 6.4 i
237.4
(16.0)
(9.6)
(4.1)
All flgllr8S are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsibiKies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable. '.
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
II
,I
I
II
!
II
I
I
.
I
II
I
i
I
I
I
I
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AND REVENUES
AS PER MAY 1,1997 AGREEMENT
$ Million
York Reaion
AItIlt7l8tivfl f Alternative 2
i 50% of Ed. Si1gle Ed. Res.
I Res. Taxes Tax Rate
i
- -
Social Assistance 73.3 73.3
Chad Care 7.5 7.5
Public Health 16.2 16.2
Ambulances 15.1 15.1
Social Housi1g 81.3 81.3
Chidren's Aid Societies (1.5) (1.5)
GO Transit 13.5 13.5
Transit - Operali1g and CapKal 3.4 3.4
Ferries 0.0 0.0
Airports 0.0 0.0
Septic Inspections 0.4 0.4
Policilg 0.0 0.0
Provi1cial Offences Net Revenues (2.8) (2.8)
lilraries 0.7 0.7
Property Jlssessment < 7.4 7.4
Managed Forests I Conservation Lands 0.6 0.6
Fann Tax Rebate 2.9 2.9
Gross Receipts Taxes 2.7 2.7
Residential Education Tax Room 1203.2\ (191.1\
[INet Change i1 Municipal Costs I Revenues: i ! 17.6 II II 29.8 ij
Post.WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 891.9 891.9
Efficiencies by 2000~1 (60.2) (60.2)
(2.3% per year i1 each of nelCl3 years)
WOW Net Change Alter Efficiencies (42.6) (30.4)
As % of Post-WOW Municipal Own-Purpose Spendilg (4.8) (3.4)
All figures are estinates. See accompanyilg notes. Transfer of responsibftilies and related changes may
require the approval of the Legistature, where applicable. -
49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Communications for Direction
August 18, 1997
Number
Suggested Disposition
D - 1
THAT the correspondence dated July 31, 1997 from Diane Cary requesting a
crossing guard at the intersection of Mearns A venue and Soper Creek Drive,
BowmanvilJe, be received;
THAT the correspondence be referred to the Director of Public Works for
review and preparation of a report to be submitted to the General Purpose and
Administration Committee; and
THAT Diane Cary be advised of Council's decision.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
COUNCIL DIRECTION
40 Strathmanor Dr.
Bowmanville, ON
LiC 4L3
July 31, 1997
AGENDA
Dear Mayor Hamre & Members of Council,
D - 1
I am writing this letter to request that a crossing guard be placed at Mearns Ave. and Soper
Creek Drive in Bowmanville.
I have a 6 year old boy, Jake, who has to cross Mearn Ave. to catch his bus, and a 4 year old girl
who catches the bus near our house. Both of these buses come at the same time. I can't be in 2
places at one time. Mearns has become such a busy road and the cars are going very fast. I
have already talked to the school board and they have said that Jake doesn't have to cross the
street, he can wait till the bus stops and the driver motions for him to cross. I am fearful that
some car won't stop and my son will forget to wait for the bus driver to motion him and he will
get hit. Jake is only 6 and he may try and cross the street before the bus comes as all the other
children are on the east side. I think it is fair to say that this would be a lot of responsibility for a
6 year old. The school board is not willing to bring Jake's bus into our subdivision.
please seriously consider putting a crossing guard at this intersection. There are many children
who cross Mearns Ave. at this intersection who walk to Vincent Massey School. It is not just
the children catching the bus that would be affected. Mearns Ave. is very busy with people
turning onto Mearns. I have witnessed 2 accidents at that comer this past year. One child was
almost hit.
I know you are having a special meeting in August. I want this item placed on the agenda as
school starts Sept. 2. Please inform me when a traffic survey will be taking place and the
results. Can I attend the meeting when it is on the agenda? My phone number is 697-0801.
Thanks for your consideration into this matter. I hope we will have a crossing guard so our
children will be safer.
Sincerely
~I ",0
IJil. lJ
(~
Diane Cary
\~~~TRiBuTiO~\
\ liCK BY -~~---:- '\ ,,:
I ORIGlNlIl TO:~
I CO~ES 1~~
r - -'::=-._~'..
.\---......- . -\-.--.. ,
-- \-----.--;
--.--.----.-\..--..---j'
~ .
- .-j-----
----..=---=~=\-.---\
I '--=:j
~-==A=- ~
rr;lT4?_l.&E:---- t
--.~ . -" ._-.~---~.~._~.. -~_.
....-
jl
'II
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT III
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ClARINGTON
ON: pD-10e-97
REPORT
Meeting:
Date:
Council Meeting
Monday, August 18, 1997
Rle#
Res. #
Report #: PD-108-97 Rle #: By-law #
S b' ct REZONING APPLICATION -1151233 ONTARIO LTD.
U Je: PART LOT 26, BF CONCESSION, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON
OSBOURNE ROAD
FILE: DEV 96-022
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-108-97 be received;
2. THAT application for removal ofthe "Holding (H)" symbol submitted by 1151233
Ontario Ltd. be APPROVED as per the attached By-law;
3. THAT the amending By-law attached hereto be APPROVED;
4.
THAT a copy of this report and the amending by-law be forwarded to the Region
of Durham Planning Department; and . .
H
.
THAT the interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of
Council's decision. .
5.
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant:
Agent:
Rezoning Application:
1154233 Ontario Ltd.
Mr. Nigel O'Neil
From "Holding-General Industrial Exception ((H)M2-
15)" to "General Industrial Exception (M2-15)".
3.8 ha (9.~9 ha)
1.4
Land Area:
...{2
.
3.2
3.3
.
REPORT PD-108-97
PAGE 2
2.
2.1
LOCATION
The subject property is located on the north east side of Osborne Road where it
runs parallel to the Canadian National Railway line. The property is further
described as being located in Part Lot 26, Broken Front Concession, Former
Township of Darlington.
3.
3.1
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 1997, Council approved the subject rezoning application to permit
an automotive dismantling and parts warehouse distribution and sales
establishment (motor vehicle wrecking yard), in addition to other uses permitlec:f,;;j )
in the M2 zone. The rezoning was approved subject to the removal of the
Holding (H) symbol at such time the applicant has executed a site plan
agreement with the Municipality.
Since the May 12 Council meeting the, applicant has been working on the
engineering details of the site plan in ord,er to . satisfy the requirements of the
Conservation Authority and the Public Works-Department. The site plan drawings
are now substancially complete and address the issues of all circulated agencies.
The applicant and the Municipality are currently finalizing the execution of the
required site plan agreement.
The agreement details all the site servicIng including, grading, drainage,
stonnwater management techniques and septic system. Development of the site
will include a stormwater management pond which will collect all stormwater run-
off from the operation, prior to outfaJling to the existing drainage ditch under the
CNR tracks. The plan also details. the location of the septic system and a
replacement area. The agreement will require the applicant to comply with all
M'mistry of the Environment regulations. The agreement also details the site
'I
i
I
I
II
,1.1
I
)
l
I
il I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PAGE 3
REPORT PD-108-97
enclosure, parking areas and entrances, landscape details as well as building
elevations.
3.4
Pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act, a By-law Amendment to remove the
"Holding (H)" symbol is not subject to the normal appeal period afforded to a
standard rezoning application, and accordingly shall be deemed final and binding
should Council grant approval of same.
4.
4.1
RECOMMENDATION
In consideration of the comments noted above, Staff would have no objectiont.~,~
the removal of the "Holding (H)" symbol as shown on the attached by"lawan~;~
schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
;
<
<
dt"~""':" e0~
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.,RP.P.,
Director of Planning
and Development
w.~
Chief Administrative
Officer
CP*FW*km
Attachment No. 1 - Key Map
Attachment No. 2 - By-law
August 7. 1997
-
REPORT PD-108-97
PAGE 4
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
1151233 Ontaro Limited
c/o Williamn Labonovich
85 Ambleside Drive
Port Perry, Ontario
LOB 1 NO
Keith and Shirley Crago
255 Osbourne Road
Courtice, Ontario
L1E 2R3
August and Maria Huth
447 Wilson Road North
OShawa, Ontario
L1 G 6Ea
Tunney Planning
340 Byron Street Suite 200
WHITBY, Ontario
L 1 N 4P8
Florence Arnold
75 Osbourne Road
Courtice, Ontario
L1 E 2R3
Nigel O'Neill
52 Stonegate Street
Gormley, Ontario
LOH 1 GO
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
!
II
,
II
I
..,11
'!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BY-LAW 97-
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law of the former
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle.
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it
advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the former Corporation of the Town
of Newcastle in accordance with application DEV 9~22.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1 . . Schedule "1" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by
changingthezonedesignationfrom "Holding-Generallndustrial Exception ((H)M2-
15)" to "General Industrial Exception (M2-15)" as illustrated on the attached
Schedule 'A" hereto.
2. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
3_ This By-law shall come into effect on the d~e of the passing thereof, subject to
the provisions of Section 36 of the Planning:Act.
By-Law read a first time this 18th day of August 1997.
By-Law read a second time this 18th day of August 1997.
By-Law read a third and finally passed this 18th day of August 1997.
Mayor
Clerk
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1111 SUBJECT SITE
_ OTHER U\NDS OWNED BY APPLICANT
LOT 28 LOT 27 LOT 26 LOT 25
"illi I ROAD L
=:5
o
<{
o
0::::
--LL
IT'
==11
1"-1
w
o
.i=
'0::::
:)
iO
o
LAKE ONTARIO
OOIJJl~
~~
DEV. 96-022
z
o
-
(f)
(f)
w
()
z
o
()
I-
Z
o
a::::
l.L.
z
W
~
o
a::::
ro
I
ATTACHMENT NO 1
-
REPORT 112
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNlCIPAUTY OF CLARlNGTON
REPORT
!
I
,
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date:
August 18, 1997
File #
Res. #
By-Law #
Meeting:
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
Report #:
TR 75 97 File #:
Subject:
REPLACEMENT OF TAX SOFTWARE
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. TIIAT Report TR-75-97 be received;
2. TIIAT authorization be granted for the purchase of Property Tax computer software
and that the contract be awarded to Vailtech Inc. in the approximate amount of
$45,000;
3. TIIA T authorization be granted for the Treasurer to proceed with the purchase of
Oracle database software at an approximate cost of $30,000 from Oracle Inc. and
a UNIX database server at an approximate cost of $35,000 from 3C Complete
Computer Consulting Inc., required for the operation of the new tax software, the
GIS software and future replacement of fInancial software to accommodate year
2000 issues;
4. TIIAT authorization be granted for the Treasurer to proceed with the purchase of
required hardware necessary to accommodate changes to the format of the tax tape
from the provincial assessment office at an approximate cost of $5,000 from 3C
Complete Computer Consulting Inc.;
5. TIIAT consulting on an "as required" basis for the required changes be approved;
6. TIIAT the Working Funds Reserve be renamed the Working Funds and Rate
Stabilization Reserve and that the by-law be amended to provide, that on an
annual basis any surplus for the year automatically be transferred into this
Reserve to be accessed annually, as required for tax rate stabilization purposes
through the budget process;
7. TIIAT the existing surplus as reported in the 1996 year end fInancial statements
be transferred into the renamed Working Funds and Rate Stabilization Reserve;
.""".tX\...,,"
....~~.<C'ClE
-
TR-75-97
Paee - 2 -
8.
THAT the Premier Mike Harris be notified that the Municipality of Clarington is
concerned that the legislative changes being implemented with respect to current
value assessment will have a significant financial impact on the Municipality of
Clarington;
9.
THAT the cost of the computer software, hardware and consulting required to
accommodate tax changes as a result of Bill 106 be financed from the Working
Funds and Rate Stabilization Reserve;
10.
THAT the Purchasing By-Law be waived for the above recommendations; and
11.
THAT the amended By-Law (Attachment #1) be forwarded to Council for
approval.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
1.0 On May 27,1997, the Fair Municipal Finance Act 1997 (Bill 106) received royal assenL
This legislation has a significant impact on the Tax Department and the requirements of
the computer software. Examples inelude items such as, phasing-in requirements, tax
ratios, property tax classes and farm and managed forests percentsge discounts.
1.1 The existing tax software has been modified/customized over the years but has not been
replaced since approximately 1986. The existing software cannot accommodate the
requirements of Bill 106. The software would have to be entirely rewritten/redesigned at
a cost in excess of the replacement costs.
1.2 Also, major staff resources would be required in'any redesign. It is far more cost
effective to purchase new softwarc already design~ to accommodate the changes of Bill
106.
1.3 As Council is aware from the auditor's management letter to Council for the 1996 year
end audit, the Municipality's current financial software cannot accommodate year 2000
issues. It was anticipated that full replacement of the fmancials (including tax) would be
presented to Council for approval through the 1998 Capital Budget process. The
recommendations in this report result in advancing the timing of the tax module
replacement and the required hardware and database software. It is still anticipated that
the balance of the fmancial software will be addressed through the 1998 Capital Budget
process.
1.4 Municipal staff have participated in several vendor demonstrations with other area
municipalities in the Region of Durham. . Due to short time requirements in order to
install and implement in time for the effective date of January I, 1998 of Bill 106, it is
not feasible to issue a full Request for Proposal. There are a very limited number of
software packages available that can accommodate all of the changes in the time frame
required.
1.5 The area municipal staff have specifically looked at two systems, Vailtech and Sierra for
the tax module. Both systems have full integration capabilities with current full fmancial
systems in the marketplace. The Region of Durham will be forwarding to Treasury staff
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Paee-3-
TR-75-97
significant information they have accumulated with respect to replacement of the financial
software. None of these financial packages include a tax module. The tax component is
purchased separately but fully integradable into the systems available.
1.6 Based on a comparison of Vailtech and Sierra, both appear to have fairly complete
functionality. However, Sierra does not have a counter cash receipt system and is
significantly more expensive than Vailtech.
1.7 Staff have reviewed recent Request for proposals issued by London, St. Catherines and
Ottawa. Vailtech was awarded the contract in all three cases.
1.8 Due to the large number of municipalities in a similar situation as Clarington, in order to
ensure delivery time frames, it is necessary to make a commitment to the software vendor
as soon as possible.
WORKING FUNDS RESERVE
2.0 Bill 106 Part Two, indicates that in future, the full amount of any surplus must be
applied in the subsequent year's budget process. Currently, the Municipality through the
budget process, draws in only the portion necessary to meet budget requirements. The
balance is carried over to future years to provide for longer term stsbility. In order to
secure this ability to provide some stsbility in the longer term, it is necessary to tranSfer
the balance of the surplus into a reserve.
2.1 It is also recommended that this practice be estsblished on an annual basis and the by-
law for the Working Funds Reserve be renamed-ood amended to put this into effect.
CONCLUSIONS,
3.0 Bill 106 has resulted in many required changes that must be accommodated at the
municipal level. Consulting services may be necessary as implementation of a tax system
proceeds and it is proposed that they be used on 00 "as required" basis.
3.1 It is recommended that the required purehases be financed from the amended Working
Funds ood Rate Stabilization Reserve (balooce approximately $900,000) ood that the
Purchasing By-Law be waived for all of the purchases due to the restricted time frames
and small number of compooies that coo accommodate the legislative changes, current
and future.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
~
Y
W.H. tockwell, .J
Chief Administrative Officer.
Treasurer.
MM/NT/hjl
Attachment
-
TilE COUl'OIlATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLAIUNGTON
BY-LAW NUMIJER 97-
Being a by-law to amend By-Law #88-159,
being a by-law to eSlablish a policy
respeelillg Workillg Funds Heserves.
WHEREAS the Coulleil of the Corporalion of tbe Municipality of Clarington considers it
desirnble to re-eslablish the policies respecting Working Funds Heservcs;
AND WHEREAS Section 163(2) of the Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended, provides, that
"every MUlIieipality and every board, eommissioll, body or local authority eslablished or
exereisillg any power or authority with respect to municipal affairs under any general or special
Ael in an unorganized lownship or unsurveyed territory may in each year provide in the estimates
for the establishment or maintenance of a Reserve Fund for any purpose for which it has
authority to spend funds:
..
NOW THEREFORE, Be It Enacted and It Is Enacted as a By-law of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington that By-Law #88-159 hereby be amended as follows:
· That the Working Funds Reserve be renamed as the Working Funds and Rate
Stabilization Reserve;
· That the policy respecting the Working Funds Reserve be amended to include:
4. 11,at on an annual basis, any suCplus for the year automatically be
transferred into tbis reserve to be accessed annually through the budget
process for mill rate stabilization purposes.
By-Law read a first and second time this 18tb day of August 1997.
By-Law read a third time and finally passed this 18th day of August 1997.
Mayor
Clerk
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
BY-LAW 88- 159
being a by-law to establish a policy respecting
working FundS Reserves
~IEREAS the council of the Corporation of the TOwn of Newcastle considers it
desirable to re-establish the policies respecting Working Funds Reserves;
AND WHEREAS Section 308 (1) of The Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1910, as amended,
provides, that "every Municipality and every board, conunission, body or local
authority established or exercising any power or authority with respect to
municipal affairs under any general or special Act in an unorganized township
or unsurveyed territory may in each year provide in the estimates for the
establishment or maintenance of a Reserve Fund for any purpose for which it
has authority to spend funds:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENAGrED AND IT IS ENAGrED AS A BY-LAW OF THE CORPORATION
OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE AS FOLLOWS:
policy:
1. That a policy is hereby established whereby an amount be included in
the annual estimates of the TOwn to be transferrred to the Working
Funds Reserve.
2. That the balance in the Working Funds Reserve by allowed to float within
target limits of 5% to 10% of the current year's total Municipal portion
of the tax billing.
3, That the Treasurer be authorized, after any given year-end, to transfer
to the General capital Reserve, any funds that are no longer required to
meet the cash requirements of the previous year.
By-LaW read a first time this 24th
day of October
1988
By-LaW read a second time this 24th
day of October
24th day of October
1988
By LaW read a third and final time this
1988
Mayor
(;)/). ..
Ii / ",.'j /
1n1;~<});(-:v~
,1./ ". ctwg. Clerk
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT 13
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPAliTY OF CLARlNGTON
REPORT
Meeting:
SPECIAL COUNCIL
File #
Res. #
By-Law #
Dale:
August 18, 1997
Report #: TR 77 97
File #:
Subject:
COMMENTS ON THE AMO PAPER
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs be advised that the Municipality of Clarington is
concerned that the delay in vital fInancial information from the Province will not allow the
1998 budget to be prepared in a proper and timely fashion;
2. THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs be advised that the Municipality of Clarington
has serious concerns with the announcements in the Fair Municipal Finance Act - Part 2
which removes current Municipal funding sources such as the Gross Receipts Tax and the
payments-in-lieu before details of the education"reform tax bill reductions have been
announced; and "
3. THAT Terry Mundel, AMO President be advised of Council's resolution.
Background:
1.0 In July 1997, the OffIce of the Mayor received a release from AMO titled "Who Does
\Vhat Initiative For The Record" (Attachment #1). This paper requests Municipalities to
support AMO's request for further improvements to Provincial/Municipal reforms in
Ontario.
1.1 The paper has suggested that the Municipality issue a news release with specific fInancial
information relating to reductions in transfer payments to date. It is recommended that
the Municipality await the total impact of the Provincial reforms before making offIcial
press releases. It is anticipated that the total impact will be severe and staff are
concerned that releasing the limited information now available may minimize the fmal
impact or leave the impression that this is the fInal impact.
.".....II\...".
~...A~..C'C"
TR-77-97
Paee - 2 -
2.0 The recent announcements of reductions to the payments-in-lieu and gross receipts tax,
by way of regulatory power, may have an extremely detrimental financial impact on
Clarington, as the Ontario Hydro payment-in-lieu is approximately $2.1 million and the
gross receipts tax (municipal portion) is approximately 8175,000. However, until the
education reform is announced, the Municipality is unable to determine whether the
removal of some education costs will negatively impact the final tax bill.
2.1 The most difficult problem facing Municipalities is the lack of information on all the
recent legislative changes. If some of the details of the impacts to education, assessment,
development charges, grants, etc., were finalized through regulations or official notices,
the Municipality could attempt to quantify the impact and adjust services, budgets, etc.
With the lack of knowledge and information, even informally, budgeting for the 1998
taxation year is anticipated to he extremely difficult.
3.0 The reductions imposed on Provincial transfer payments (excluding thc reduction to
Libraries and Museums) and have been incOlporated into the past budget years and are
identified helow along with some of the anticipated changes the Province is considering
for 1998:
Actual Provineial Cuts for 1996/97
Provincial Grant Reduction 1996
Provincial GliInt Reduction 1997
1,083,158
601.634
1.684.792
Proposed Cuts in 1998
Provincial Grant Reduction 1998
1.199.478
Farm Tax Rebate elimination (approx)
Hydro Grant in lieu
Telephone gross receipts
500,000
2,092,079
175.069
2.767.148
Total Potential Reduction 1996-1998 5.651.418
As stated the abovc grant-in-lieu and telephone gross receipts are to be traded off with
reduction in education costs charged to the tax hill, however the details are unknown and
thereforc this is not verifiable at this time. The recent press release circulated to Council
(release August 6, 1997) identifies two options for eduction reform. However, these
numbers may not be applicable to Claring'ton under the Northumberland Education
jurisdiction. As yet, these are no quantifiablc numbers to work with. It should also he
noted that there is also an impact from the required contribution from the existing tax
base to Development Charges and also the impact from the Actual Value Assessment is
unknown until thc roll is delivered in 1998.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
il
I
II
.
II
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pae:e-3-
TR-77-97
4.0
The final impact of all changes are not likely to be identifiable until some time in 1998.
Staff will keep Council informed of changes as they are announced by the Province.
Respectfully submitted,
ffii
. /',-, ~
;;;v~Uo- .
Marie A. Marano, H.BSc., A.M.C.T.,
Treasurer.
Reviewed by,
~
W.H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer.
MM/hjl
Attachment
At tachment III
IN; ('
Who ::Doe6 What !Jnitiative
Jut", 1997
A.s.sC:::>CIATIC>N C>F M UNIC:::IPALITIE:.S c>FI' ONTARIC3>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This package of informa1ion contains three documents that are intended to provide
Councils with addiiional information on issues surrounding the Government's decisions
regarding Who Does What. and to help Councils focus their efforts to affect further
changes to the Government's planned reforms.
1. The first document Is a letter to Councils from AMO President, Terry Mundell, setting
the record straight on AMO's involvement in Who Does What decisions and the
association's efforts to bring about changes to those decisions.
2. The second document is a draft action item for Council agendas outlining steps
member Councils can take to advocate for a better Who Does What
arrangement for Ontario's municipalities.
3. The third document Is a sample news release that member municipalities can use
as a template for a local news release to promote effective news coverage of
provincial and local issues regarding ongoing provincial/municipal reform. In
particular, It Is intended to provide addiiional pressure on the Government to
release informa1ion on the local financial impacts of its decisions.
For the record, AMO Is continuing with its efforts to affect changes in the provincial!
municipal forum that protect the Interests of property tax payers by fostering stronger
and more autonomous municipal governments in Ontario. As a sector, we have had
some breakthroughs and some setbacks, and there is still a great deal of work to be
done as municipal governments' role is redefined in Ontorio for the 21st century. By
working together, Ontario's municipalities can present a strong and unified voice.
/. hf~ AssocIaUon or
, .::1" ) Munici~IIUes
. 1." ,. of Ontano
393 University Ave.. Suite 1701
Toronto, ON M5G 1 E6
tel: (416) 971-9856
fax: (416) 97H3191
email: amo@amo.municom.com
July 9, 1997
To the Heads and Members of Council:
. .
The Govemment's announcement on May 1. 1997 that it was reversing its decision to
download 50 percent of welfare and long-term care costs to municipalities was a major
breakthrough for Ontario's municipalities and fat property tax payers In Ontario.
It was the result of a concentrated effort on the part of AMO, municipal members of the
Transition Team and many member municipalities who told the Govemment. and showed
the Govemment, that its January Who Does What plans simply would not work.
For AMO, the welfare and long-term core download was a primary focus because the AMO
Board and, overwhelmingly, AMO members told us that municipalities would rather share in
the predictable costs of education In our communities than share half of the costs of open-
ended provincial health and welfare programs.
There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the' role of the Province's Transition Team in
this process. There has also been considerable misunderstanding about AMO's role.
As the Co-chair of the Transltlon Team, along with MPPs Emie Hardeman and Jack Carroll,l
have been particularly careful to differentiate between the roles of AMO and the Transition
Team. In fact. my decision to participate on the Transition Team was made after careful
consultation with the AMO Board of Directors and with the Board's endorsement.
We knew that the interests of AMO and Its members must be heard loud and clear at the
Transition Team table. It was also Important because AMO did not select the members of the
Transition Team. Those decisions were made by the Provincial Govemment and, to their
credit, they did a good job of selecting able and articulate representatives of Ontario's
diverse municipal sector.
What's more, my decision to participate came only after the Province agreed that this was
a transition process rather than an implementation process. After all, until the Province
agreed to reconsider some of the fundamental aspects of its mega-week plans, there was,
trom AMO's perspective, nothing to implement. So we set the stage for discussion on the
premise that the Govemment was looking for advice on how to proceed and that It was
open to change.
AMO & Who Does What Initiative - For The Record
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
1.
:1
The role of the Transition Team was and is to provide actviceto the Government of Ontario.
Neither the Government nor the Transition Team members ever supported the widely
believed and mistaken assumption that this was to be a process of negotiation. And,
although we may not have liked the rules of the game, I think it would have been
irresponsible, and certainly unproductive, to decline participating just because we couldn't
set the rules ourselves.
It Is not surprising that the Province cherry picked from the Team's recommendations. They
had done the same thing with the Crombie Adlioory Ponel- accepting only the advice that
suited their needs and discounting the rest. in the final analysis, however. the process has led
to important improvements to the original package of January's reforms.
.. Here's what the Transition Team proposed:
As you know. our initial focus had to be the items that carried the most risk and the highest
costs for the sector: welfare, long-term care,.and social housing. The Team's initial proposal.
recommended that discussions on many other important issues (with annual costs of
approximately $2.0 billion) should wait until the health and social services download had
been resolved.
The Team's proposal also stated explicitly that careful consideration and additional analysis
of local impacts must be undertaken on the whole range of issues including the elimination
of the Northern Support Grant, planned roads transfers and so on.
The Transition Team proposed that municipalities could take over the management and
funding of capital. custodial and pupil transportation services for our schools. With
municipalities meeting a portion of education costs, the Province would have no need to
increase our share of welfare or to put us into the business of long-term care or social housing.
On the face of it, the Province said that.the Team's first proposal made sense but that
constitutional rights of separate and Francophone school boards meant it wouldn't work. It
wouldn't work because Francophone and separate school boards would never agree to
have their schools managed by municipolities and that was that. In fact, it was at that point
that the Province indicated that there wasn't really any point in discussing the issue further.
Why not just accept what the Province had proposed in January and move on?
Why not accept defeat? We couldn't accept defeat because the Transition Team and
AMO understood that the implications of what the Province was proposing would be
disastrous for Ontario municipalities and for properly tax payers.
Instead, we sat down with the school boards and came up with a compromise position that
became the foundation of the Team's second proposal. Rather than municipalities
managing and funding school physical plant services, the Province could flow a reduced
and capped portion of properly taxes into out. schools and, in doing so, eliminate the need
for the download of health, social services costs and social housing.
The Team's proposal also considered the overaD financial Impacts of Who Does What and
offered an alternative solution that was revenue neutral for both parties.
Page 2
AMO & Who Does What Initiative - For The Record
It was on this proposal that the ProVince developed its May 1st response. It did not. however.
accept the proposal in its entirety. Rather. the Govemment took what it liked from the
package and, without any cflSCussion with the Transition Team or AMO. came up with a new
plan for Who Does What. .
... This is what the Province decided:
They accepted the idea of a capped portion of property taxes for education purposes and,
in exchange, they decided that there wouid be no downloading of long-term care and that
municipalities would pay 20% rather than 50% of welfare costs. Over the long term, this
decision substantially reduces financial risks for municipalities and avoids new costs projected
to be in the billions of dollars.
However. the Province also decided that municipalities should still be on the hook for
provincial social housing programs. And. just as the Transition Team was preparing for
discussions on the whole range of other Who Does What proposals. the Province closed the
door on any further changes to the Who Does What package of reforms. In tact, the
Province's May 1" announcement implied incorrectly that AMO was content with mega-
week proposals on issues ranging from the elimination of the farm tax rebate and ferry
services to public health and ambulance services.
In the end. the Province's May 1st package represents a net cost to municipalities of about
$667 million instead of the $1.2 billion that mega-week would have cost us. It's stili far from
ideal but it is certainly a step In the right direction.
... What was AMO's role in all of this?
AMO played a very important role. AMO's role irythe Transition Team process was. and
continues to be. to provide the municipal repreSentatives on the team ",lith critical.
independent advice based on the needs of the entire municipal sector, and to provide
important secretariat support. Uke the Transition Team, AMO did not negotiate the current
arrangement of reforms. At the same time. AMO played a key role in moving the Province
away from its original plan to download half of welfare and long-term care costs.
... What's still unknown?
The Province is continuing to work with the Transition Team to effect a smooth transition to a
new system of provincial and municipal service and funding responsibilities. But it is not
prepared to discuss changes to the overall package of reforms announced on May 1 st.
Furthermore, the Province still has not released information on the financial impacts of Who
Does What on individual municipalities.
We do not yet know what municipalities can expect in terms of real revenues or expenditures
within a new system borne out of Who Does What. Without this important information and
without a detailed analysis of local impacls.1t is impossible for municipalities. for the Transition
T earn or for AMO to provide advice to th~ Government on the design and dislTibution of $570
million in contingency funds. We cannot even estimate whether or not this amount will be
sufficient.
AMO & Who Does What Initiative - For The Record
Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
I-
ii
II
,)
!
;.
I
I
There are also many unanswered questions about the impac1s of a varie1y of Who Does What
Initiatives against the baCkdrop of municipal restructuring. There are unresolved polley issues
relating to the allocation of seNice costs for things like police and social assistance. how new
tax policy will shape the sector and how new structures like Area Service Boards in Northern
Ontario will affect service provision.
Questions about social housing continue to concem municipalities. The issue of social
housing is currently being addressed through a separate advisory committee process and
AMO has been able to have senior municipol staff attend the proceedings in order to ensure
that member interests are brought forward in these discussions.
..... How can you assist?
We believe that there is still much to discuss before 1998. Those discussions must be informed
by a full disClosure of the financial impacts of the Govemment's decisions. That's why we are
providing you with additional tools to assist you in advocating locally for further improvemen1s
to Provincial/municipal reforms in Ontario.
1998 will see an entirely new framework of statutory and financial arrangemen1s for municipal
governmen1s in Ontario. Those arrangemen1s will define our role in governing our
communities and as partners in govemment in Ontario.
For municipalities and for property tax payers, the stakes are very high. There is much good
in what is being proposed. A new Munldpal Act and property tax reform are important steps
forward for the municipal sector. The same is true of many reforms that will streamline and
rationalize the roles of the Province and municipalities. But there are many important
improvements to the Government's proposed reforms that must be made now to ensure
that municipalities are In a position to lead Ontario into the 21" century.
',.
In order to make it happen. we need to work together on the provincial front and we need
to fc::us local efforts on key issUes. AMO has several meetings scheduled with Provincial
Cabnet Ministers over the coming weeks to raise these issues and will keep members
inforned of the progress of our discussions. AMO will continue to press the Government for
impcc'ant changes to Provincial/municipal reforms and for the information you need in order
to pian for 1998 and for the Mure.
Hearing the views of the membership is vital. Please feet free to call (416) 971-9856 to contact
myseif. Douglas Raven, Executive Director at extension 306 or Deborah DUbenofsky, Director
of Poiicy and Government Relations at extension 309 to share your thoughts.
Sincerely ,
{~/
rrn
Terry Mundell
AMO President
Page 4
AMO & Who Does What Initiative - For The Record
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
.,'
-,-J
t'j
,-
...,
I
I
I
"
if
I
I
I
,--.,;-1
Page, 5', .....'....;_'...'.<;I:..~.
~ -C" '\~~'.~
'.<-::::. -~
oe:S What: Action Jor C~
Municipalities have been very active in pressing the Govemment for changes that improve
the outlook for property tax payers and meet the needs of their communities. The work of
municipalities locally has contributed very substantialiy to AMO's success over the years and
in particular since June 1995.
The current Provincial Govemment has demonstrated that it cannot ignore concerted
pressure from the municipal sector.
.. What can you do locally to help bring additional pressure to bear?
<>- Work with your MPP - Whether your MPP is a member of the Government Caucus or
one of the opposlfion parties, he or she can be very influential in working behind the
scenes or by focusing discussion in the Legislature. Ask your MPP to meet with
Council. Ask what he or she Is doing to help you get the information you need from
the Provincial Govemment. Ask what they are doing to protect the interests of
property tax payers in your community. Ask members of the Govemment Caucus to
account for decisions that adversely affect municipalities, and to provide financial
impacts of the Govemment's plans for provincial/municipal reform.
~ Work with your local news media - Estimate the financial impact on your municipality
of Who Does What reforms. In the absence of real numbers from the Province, talk to
the local news media about what might be. Let them know that you cannot provide
any assurances that property taxes will remain stable. Make sure they know what your
municipality has done already to manage in !f1e face of reduced Provincial funding.
<>- Work with your stakeholders - The Govemment is proceeding with its plans to transfer
responsibility for social housing to Ontario's municipal sector. What wili the impact be
in your community? What is the impact on people In your community who rely on
social housing and the agencies that provide services? What opportunity will you
have for input?
~ Wcxk with front-line ministries - As part of the Govemment's May 1 sf announcement,
it confirmed a permanent $500 million community investment fund and an additional
$70 million for communities with special needs. But the lack of information on the local
financial impacts of Who Does What means that municipalities and front line
govemment ministries cannot plan for contingency funding. What does that mean
for your community? Make front line ministries account for the Govemment's decision
on specific issues that concem your municipality.
<>- Wcxk with your municipal associations - Counciliors and municipal staff represent your
mLD"licipality in many professional and other associations. Are the goals of the
associations you suppart consistent with the goals of your municipality or are they atmcross purposes? Is there a clear distinction between political and professional Issues?
MLIlicipal associations can be a pawerful voice for your interests. Make sure all of your
associations are working for you.
AMO & Who Does What Initiative - For The Record
II
1
II
ill
i
II
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~\'
oe~ What SAMPLE NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
July 9, 1997
Municipality Wants Answers from Queen's Park
Municipalities are tired of waiting for information on the local financial impacts of decisions
made by the Provincial Government. 1997 is year 2 of a two year reduction in Provincial
transfer payments to (insetf munic/palily) totaling $(lnsetf local reduction). For 1998, the Province
will eliminate the remaining $(lnsed (eduction) in Provincial funding with the cancellation of the
Municipal Support Program. That means that provincial financial support for roads and other
municipal responsibilities is a thing of the past.
The real problem however, goes much farther than lost Provincial transfers. As a result of the
Province's Who Does What plans announced during "mega-week" in January, municipalities
across Ontario are facing growing uncertainty about the costs and revenues that they will
be managing come January 1, 1998.
In May, the Province announced that II would not go ahead with its plans to download long-
tenn care and half of the costs of welfare onto municipalities, but just about everything else
municipalities deal with Is changing.
One of the key concerns is assessment and property tax refonn. The change Is twofold. The
assessment system is being overhauled with a whole (lew method of property assessment.
The Provincial polley that munlcipafmes use to set local tqx rates is changing as well. The first
stage of the new assessment legislation was passed in May and the second stage, Bill 149,
is still before the Legislature. But even once the new legislation Is in place, municipalities will
not be in any position to project next year's revenues. The revised assessment Infonnation
won't be ready until some time in the Spring of 1998.
j
But the biggest concern is not on the revenue side of the equation. Municipalities still have
not been given any lnfonnation on what their new Who Does What responsibilities will cost.
For certain, there will be new costs. The list of new municipal costs is a long one. Among the
most seriouS concerns for (lnsetf rnun/CIpcIIif}i are (lnsetf keyll)cal issues). Although the Province
has refused to provide actual figures, the estimated additional costs for property tax payers
of these issues is estimated to be (Insert figure).
,
(Insed Name of Head of CounCil) said that without additional infonnation from the Province on
the financial impacts of the Government's decisions, and without further discussion on how
some of these changes will take place, there- is no way that Council can provide any
assurances that property taxes won't go up in 1998. 'We are definitely going to have to do
more with less. but until we can start planning based on real numbers, there is little we can
do to mitigate against higher costs and lower revenues.'
- 30-
For additional infonnation, contact (Insert contact name and phone number)
Page 6
AMO & Who Does What Initiative - For The Record
REPORT 115
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
~AA~~~
REPORT
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
AUGUST 18, 1997
File #
Res. #
By-Law #
Report #
CS 09 97
File #:
Subject:
RICKARD RECREATION COMPLEX - EXPANSION
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following:
1. THAT Report No. CS-09-97 be received;
2. THAT Council approve the preliminary designs for the expansion of the Rickard Recreation
Complex; and
3. THAT staff be authorized to call for tenders for the expansion of the Rickard
Recreation Complex; and
4. THAT Staff be authorized to undertake a pre-qualification procedure for all potential
bidders.
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 At the June 23, 1997 meeting, Council awarded the contract for architectural services for the
Garnet B. Rickard Recreational Complex expansion to Barry Bryan Associates Ltd. Since that
time, the consultants in conjunction with the Project Committee have developed a series of
drawings to accommodate the project requirements.
2.0 As part of the design process it is imperative that the various user groups and facility operators
(staff) have an opportunity for meaningful input into the design of the project. To that end,
meetings were held with the user groups and the facility operators.
2.1 Both meetings proved very useful and we are pleased to note that many of the design features
are as a result of those meetings. Subsequent to Council's approval of the preliminary design,
follow up meetings will be held with both groups to review the drawings.
3.0 CRITICAL PATH
3.1 As members of Council are aware, the demand for ice time in Clarington has never been
greater. With that in mind, staff has taken an aggressive approach to the timing of the project,
with the ultimate goal of having the new ice pad available to the Community no later than
August of 1998.
../2
,.....f.l;\ ...".
0....." ~~rc.~t<
. ,."o,,,,,,,,,.o.,,..,.-,,,,"A1'fll
REPORT CS-09-97
- 2 -
AUG. 18,1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..-----------------------..-..
3.2 Key dates and milestones leading to the start of construction have been established as follows:
June 23, 1997 Hire Architect
Junc 25. 1997 Meeting: Committee/Architcct
Julv 3, 1997 Meeting: Facility Operators
July 8, 1997 Meeting: User Groups
July 14, 1997 Site Traffic Study
August 11, 1997 Design Review
August 18, 1997 Report to Council
Preliminary Design Approval
Pre-qualification
August 19-5eptember 29, 1997 - Prepare Detailed Drawings
Follow-up meetings with User
Groups/Operators
September 22,1997
Pre-qualification Approval
September 30-0ctober 14,1997-
October 14, 1997
October 15-21, 1997
October 27,1997 or
NO\.. 3, 1997 (Special Meeting)
Tender Call
Tender Opening
Tender Review
Award Tender
4.0 PRE-QUALIFICATION
4.1 In accordance with previous practice, staff is recommending a pre-qualification process for
potential bidders of this project. This process offers advantages to the Municipality in that it
eliminates the possibility of a low bidder being awarded the contract when they may not be
qualified to do the job. Further, pre-qualification ensures the respective contractor's financial
stability and credibility.
4.2 Also. in order to provide maximum opportunity for local trades to participate in this
project, the Durham Construction Association will be kept informed of the tendering
process and further, our plans will be on display at their offices.
5.0 PROJECT DESIGN
5.1 The architect will be making a detailed presentation to Council in conjunction with this report.
however, it should be noted that the drawings as presented do reflect the design criteria as
stipulated in the proposal call for architectural services.
./3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
1,1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT CS-09-97
- 3-
AUG. 18,1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..---------------------------------------------------
5.2 I n addition, comments and requests were received from various user groups and staff pertaining
to the design with the objective of making the facility more user friendly and efficient, while
maintaining an annual operating surplus.
5.3 Of particular note, are two components of the expansion located on the second floor
plan. It is anticipated that the area identified as "possible lease area", could be utilized
by leasing to the private sector, as a restaurant/lounge/sports bar. The other area
identified as "viewing/meeting room" provides heated viewing to both pads and is
intended to accommodate a variety of uses such as tournaments, meetings, hockey
schools, training camps, competitions etc.
5.4 As the project progresses, staff will be reporting back to Council to update and review
direction as to the possible leasing options.
Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by,
/]~
W. H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
P. Caruana, Director
unity Services Department
lPC:pg
Attachment
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting:
Date:
Report #:
Subject:
REPORT 117
THE
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
xxx'XlJtlRse~~m~fifk'ixr~X'f~~*-Wkxx
REPORT
SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL
File #
Res. #
By-Law #
AUGUST 18, 1997
WD- 51- 97File #:
APPLICATION TO STOP UP AND CLOSE A PORTION OF THE ROAD
ALLOWANCE KNOWN AS WAVERLY ROAD IN BOWMANVILLE AND TO
CONVEY THE SAME TO BLUE CIRCLE CANADA INC. (ST. MARY'S
CEMENT)
PROPOSED DEDICATION OF PORTIONS OF THE HAUL ROAD AND
EXTENSIONS AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF
A LEASE OF THEM TO THE MUNICIPALITY
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following
recommendations:
1. THAT Report WD-51-97 be received;
2. THAT the portion of the haul road and extensions of it shown
schematically on Attachment No.2, be dedicated as a public
highway until the termination of the lease of them to the
Municipality which is referred ~o in this report;
3. THAT, subject to compliance with relevant legislation, By-law
No. 95-22, the lease to the Municipality and dedication of a
public highway of the portions of the haul road and extensions
referred to in Recommendation No.2, and the approval by
Council of appropriate land exchange and financial
arrangements with the applicant referred to in this report,
being portions of Waverly Road generally located from a point
approximately twenty metres (20 m) south of the southerly
limit of the Ontario Hydro Right-of-Way to a point
approximately one hundred and fifty metres (150 m) north of
Watson Drive be closed as a public highway and conveyed to the
Applicant;
REPORT NO.: WD-51-97
Paqe 2
4.
THAT staff be
authorized to advertise a Public Hearing
the Municipal Act to implement Recommendations
required under
No. 2 and 3;
5. THAT, if following such Hearing, Council passes the by-laws to
stop up and close those parts shown schematically on
Attachment No.2, and to authorize the conveyance of them to
the Applicant, and to dedicate the lands referred to in
Recommendation No. 2 as a public highway, the Mayor and Clerk
be authorized to execute the necessary documents to complete
the closure and conveyance to the Applicant;
6. THAT staff be authorized to take action to obtain the
necessary approvals required by relevant legislation;
7. THAT by-laws to give effect to this request be passed;
8. THAT the Clerk obtain written approval of the by-law to close
and convey the subject portions of Waverly Road, by registered
mail, from the Region of Durham;
9. THAT Blue Circle Canada Inc., the Port Darlington Community
Association, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Central Lake
Ontario Conservation and Ontario Hydro be advised of Council's
decision.
REPORT
1. 0 ATIACHMENTS
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 2
Key Map
Map showing portions of Waverly Road
Proposed to be Closed and Conveyed and
the portions of the haul road and
extension located on the Applicant's
lands which are to be leased to the
Municipality and dedicated for the term
of the lease as a public highway.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT NO.: WD-51-97
Paqe 3
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The waterfront Regeneration Trust issued its Westside Marsh
Report and Recommendations in November, 1995. This Report
followed the submission by the Honourable David Crombie of the
Interim Report on the Royal Commission on the Future of the
Toronto waterfront in 1990. The 1995 Report was prepared with
the encouragement of the Municipality, the Community and St.
Mary's Cement. St. Mary's Cement has recently been acquired
by Blue Circle Canada Inc. ("Blue Circle"), the present
Applicant.
2 . 2 Wests ide Marsh wq.s identified by the Trust as the only
Provincially significant Class II Wetland on the Durham shore
of Lake ontario. The Trust noted that it is valued highly by
regional and local naturalists and by residents on the
Municipality's waterfront. However, the limestone beneath the
Westside Marsh is licensed for extraction and subject to
protection under Provincial policy.
2.3
The Westside Marsh borders on approximately fifty (SO)
dwellings in the Cedar Crest Beach Road and Watson Drive
area. It is also adjacent to a number of dwellings in the
Cove Road area. Cove Road presently is a private road.
In preparing its Report of November, 1995, the Trust organized
a number of meetings between two groups of stakeholders to
consider habitat issues and other community concerns related
to St. Mary's proposed developments in the westside Marsh.
Hhile these meetings were ongoing, additional studies were
conducted and the Trust met with relevant agencies and
individuals to obtain additional expert information. The plan
contained in the Trust Report stated the following obj ecti ves:
. protect most of the Marsh and create a new habitat for
fish, birds, plants and animals in order to achieve no
net loss, overall;
. create 120 acres of parkland to protect the community;
2.4
REPORT NO.: WD-51-97
Paqe 4
· close approximately four (4) acres of Waverly Road which
would be transferred to St. Mary's Cement and provide
access to Cedar Crest Beach by a bridge and road
connection to West Beach Road;
· relocate a portion of Westside Creek, east and then
south, into the portion of Westside Marsh which will be
retained.
2.5 At Council's direction, the Chief Administrative Officer has
held a number of meetings with staff and representatives of
Blue Circle to attempt to work out an integrated package of
business and legal arrangements necessary to implement the
Trust's recommendations and to protect the Municipality's
interests as well as the interests of the affected
communities. The following have been undertaken:
· Preliminary drawings have been prepared by the
Municipality's consultants which show the proposed bridge
that would connect Cedar Crest Beach Road to Cove Road
and the improvements that'..are necessary to bring Cove
Road up to Municipal standards.
· Meetings have been held by staff with representatives of
CLOCA and Ontario Hydro respecting property transfer and
management arrangements that would have to be made with
those organizations. Discussions have been held with
representatives of the Federal Department of Fisheries
and Oceans respecting its requirements to compensate for
the loss of a portion of the fisheries habitat.
· Staff have contacted the land owners who would be
affected by the acquisition of Cove Road and its
dedication as public "highway extending to Cedar Crest
Beach Road as well as the construction of the proposed
bridge.
· Staff have also been in contact with representatives of
the Ministry of Environment and Energy respecting
compliance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT NO.: WD 51-97
Paqe 5
and with the Canadian Coast Guard respecting compliance
with the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Federal
Environmental Assessment Act.
All of these discussions are ongoing at the present time. The
Chief Administrative Officer expects that he will be in a
position to report on all of them to Council at its meeting on
September 29, 1997.
2.6 The meetings with Blue Circle have included negotiations
respecting the consideration that would be paid by Blue Circle
in money and in land in exchange for the conveyance of the
portions of Waverly Road referred to in this report.
2.7 The residents of the Cedar Crest Beach Road and Watson Drive
areas now have access to their properties only via Waverly
Road. The acquisition of Cove Road, its dedication as a
public highway, and the construction of the proposed bridge to
connect Cove Road to Cedar Crest Beach Road would follow the
closure and conveyance of the portions of Waverly Road in
question. The Municipal Act prolijbits the closing of a public
highway which is the only access to properties unless access
by another public highway is provided. In order to address
these considerations, staff have negotiated for and Blue
Circle has agreed to lease to the Municipality the portions of
its present haul road and extensions of it shown on the Map
contained in Attachment No.2. The northerly extension of the
haul road is to be constructed by Blue Circle at its expense.
2.8 The portion of the haul road and its extensions will be leased
to the Municipality at a nominal rental, for a term which will
expire when Cove Road and the proposed bridge are dedicated as
a public highway under the Municipal Act. During the term of
the lease, the portion of the haul road and its extensions
would be dedicated by the Municipality as a public highway so
that continuous access via a public highway would continue to
be provided to the residents of the Cedar Crest Beach Road and
REPORT NO.: WD-51-97
Paqe 6
Watson Drive areas.
2.9 Construction of the proposed bridge to connect Cove Road to
Cedar Crest Beach Road will require approvals under the
Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and the Navigable Waters
Protection Act. Staff are continuing to investigate other
approvals which may be required under relevant Provincial and
Federal Legislation.
2.10 Blue Circle has agreed to share with the Municipality the cost
of the upgrading of Cove Road to municipal standards and the
construction of the proposed bridge to connect Cove Road and
Cedar Crest Beach Road. The Chief Administrative Officer will
be reporting further on recommended cost sharing, land
exchange and management arrangements to Council at its meeting
of September 29, 1997.
2.11 Staff intend to hold an informal meeting with residents
concerning the road plans early in September (tentative date -
Thursday, September 4, 1997). . Representatives of relevant
agencies will be invited to participate. A report will be
submitted to Council on the results of this meeting for the
meeting on September 29, 1997.
CONCLUSION
3.0 The holding of the Public Meeting by Council to consider the
proposed closure and conveyance of portions of Waverly Road to
Blue Circle and the dedication as a public highway for the
term of the lease to the Municipality of the portion of the
haul road and extensions as shown on the map contained in
Attachment No.2, is the first step in the implementation of
the Waterfront Regeneration Trust recommendations respecting
the Wests ide Marsh. It is requested that Council authorize
staff to advertise a Public Meeting of Council to be held to
consider these proposals on September 29, 1997. The approval
of the proposals will be subject to compliance by the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT NO.: WD 51-97
Paqe 7
Municipality with all relevant legislation applicable thereto
as well as the Municipal Sale of Surplus Land By-law (By-law
No. 95-22).
The approval of the proposals will also be subject to
Council's approval of appropriate land exchange, and financial
arrangements with Blue Circle which are considered necessary
by Council to implement the Waterfront Regeneration Trust's
recommendations contained in its Report of November, 1995, and
to protect the Municipality's and the communities' interests.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
~~
Stephen A. Vokes, P. Eng.,
Director of Public Works
W.H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
DH: j co
1,1
~
~'/""-"
.. "-:_/~ . . ~ ==--~=-=
. .
\
'"
e::
-;:
'"
>
'"
s:
-~.
.::::-;:---_/
"BOWMANVI LLE"
.iff
~
'/
" I
I
I ~11
,
I
I
<~I
'I
:i
,
.J
~;J
, r?'
[] Ii \
~take Rd,
\\ -
) ) II (C~~~.~c:::
" ,
__W:,~ !~:c~ " ""ii '& , I
_ - _,~d:, ~~. '...., I
--- --- -.----------l
'l~ I
;0
o
III
C.
Hwy. No. 4~
)
~
I: \,
~ u3i,
.. \\ ~,.
" , -.. \\ " II
.> "-'. -.,...ft-"~"---"--...I'.~...I
,,~" "..- '-.."\ ~~.
.-/ k- Westside. (.
. /. '\ Creek \ \
Waterfront ~ Diversion
Trail 11 'I
, V '\ \.\
\ ~
i
...
Future
Road
Closure
/
I
I
/
/
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Watson
---=--=-------.....
/ Dr.~.'-
N.T.s
J
"J>..
!
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON, I
'I
WEST SIDE MARSH
_ totten sims hubicki associates
....... ~-~~,---~"~~."'".
. . .'-, , .....
KEY MAP
II
__, I
I
12.1~~
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
July 18, 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CU"'\ ,'",._, :~)
U_. JIII11'II I
L I \'
_A... '[I'IT... !
...... j !.! !
1,1. .. ;
.';'lJI'11 i I I
..L.1 _. _I , L uD
,fT [--r'~-i
I ~~ _ _n'
LJ~'i ~
C
( ~.
I
----.-""
'~ 'j /
- '-"./ /
;
/'
ji
/ /
/1 :
'''"" ')
1/ ..
~/
-
CI)
....
CU
>
.-
~
a.
N"C
.... C
C CU
CI) (,)
E=
.t:"c
(,) :::s
CUa.
~-
C)
ct
~
<:
C)
0-
CU
:s
"C
CU
o
a:
~
:'S
I!
I
I
I,
i!
,
I.
Ii
I,
"-
i~
'~\
". \;:!
'\' \\
'6\
"I
, '" \
II
~~J
\ ~)
\ ( i
" \./
, '
:CS\'\
!im
-1----~
~s
~C ~~
gW Z
~~ ~~
~~ Eg
z
l ,,-Q~
000
'"
Z)-,Z
\i~~
Q.~O
I-
--~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT #4
Telephone (416) 360-3326
FaosimHe (416) 8G8-0306
DENNIS C. HEFFERON
BARRISTER & SOLICITOR
Suite 2500
130 Adelaide Street West
Toronto, Ontario
MSH2M2
TDX Box 38
August 13, 1997
Mayor Diane Hamre
and Members of Council
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L 1 C 3A6
Dear Mayor Hamre and Members of Council:
RE: REFERRAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PORT
DARLINGTON SECONDARY PLAN TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
(REFERRAL NO.6)
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following:
1.1 THAT the draft Memorandum of Understancjing between the Municipality, North
Lake Estates Inc., Bennett Estates Inc., Bennett Developments Inc. and the
Northumberland-Clarington Board of Education (Attachment No.1) be APPROVED
and a by-law passed to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the same on
behalf of the Municipality.
1.2 THAT the Municipality's solicitor be authorized to request the Ontario Municipal
Board to modify the provisions of the Port Darlington Secondary Plan which are
included in Referral No.6 by deleting Section 5.4 and so modified to approve the
provisions of the Port Darlington Secondary Plan which are included in Referral
No. 6 pursuant to the Planning Act.
Attachments
No. 1 Draft Memorandum of UnElerstanding made as of the 18th day of August,
1997.
No. 2 Map showing location of Referral No. 6 Lands.
- Page 2 -
2.0
BACKGROUND
2.1
North Lake Estates Inc., Bennett Estates Inc. and Bennett Developments Inc.
("Owner") are the owners of the lands comprising Part of Lots 5 and 6, Broken
Front Concession, former Township of Darlington ("Lands"). The lands are shown
on Attachment No.2.
2.2
Referral No.6 comprises:
· Those lands shown as Referral No.6 on Map A of the Port
Darlington Secondary Plan.
· That portion of the Type C Arterial shown on Map B3.
· Sections 9.5.5(g), 19.5.3, and 23.1004 insofar as they relate
to the lands subject to Referral No.6.
· Sections SA, 11.3 and 11.7 of the Port Darlington Secondary
- Plan insofar as they relate to the lands subject to Referral No.
6.
2.3
Discussions have taken place between the Owner, the Northumberland-Clarington
Board of Education C'School Board") and staff respecting Referral No.6. In the
end the Owner has agreed to withdraw)ts referral request respecting the
Clarington Official Plan. The Owner, the School Board and if you approve, the
Municipality will request the Ontario Municipal Board to delete Section SA from
the Port Darlington Secondary Plan. Section 5.4 ofthe Port Darlington Secondary
Plan provides:
"SA If the designated school site is deemed unnecessary, the site may be
redesignated for medium density residential uses by way of an amendment
to the Secondary Plan."
All parties would then request the Board to approve the Port Darlington
Secondary Plan provisions included in Referral No.6 except for Section 504.
2.4
The Owner is agreeable to granting the School Board a nine year offer to
purchase the future elementary school site. If the option is not exercised, the
Municipality will grant an alternative land use consistent with good planning in the
community.
2.5
The attached draft Memorandum of Understanding is acceptable to the Owner
and the School Board.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0
3.1
- Page 3 -
CONCLUSION
I recommend that you approve the draft Memorandum of Understanding and
authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute it on behalf of the Municipality. It will
preclude the necessity of a further and costly hearing being conducted by the
Ontario Municipal Board. My recommendation is supported by the Director of
Planning and Development.
YOlt~ truly,
~ (;f/ft,-'
Dennis C. Hefferon
DH*cc
Attach.
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING made as of this day
of August, 1997.
BET WEE N:
The Corporation of the Municipality of
Oarington
("Municipality")
- and -
OF TIlE FIRST PART
North Lake Estates Inc., Bennett Estates Ine. and
Bennett Developments Ine.
("Referents")
- and -
The Northumberland-CIarington Board of
Education .
("School Board'~
WITNESSETH THAT:
OF THE SECOND PART
OF THE THIRD PART
A. By letter dated December 13, 1996 addressed to Ms. Diana Macri, Secretary and
Chief Administrative Officer, Ontario Municipal Board, from Mr. A.L Georgieff;
Commissioner of Planning for the Regional Municipality of Durham ("Region") the
provisions which are the subject of Referral No.6 of the Official Plan for the Municipality
of Qarington ("Oarington Official Plan") were referred to the Ontario Municipal Board
pursuant to section 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, e.P.13, as amended to the date
of the Rcgion's letter ("Planning Act").
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.2-
B. The Referents are the owners of the lands now in the Municipality of aarington
which are more particularly described as comprising Part of Lots 5 and 6, Broken Frollt
Concession, former Township of Darlington, now the Municipality of Oarington ("Landsj.
C Referral No.6 comprises thc following provisions of the aarington Official Plan and
the Port Darlington Secondary Plan:
. Those lands shown as Referral No.6 on Map A of the Port Darlington
Secondary Plan.
. That portion of the Type C Art;erial shown on Map B3.
. Section 9.5S(g), 19.5.3, and 23,10.4 insofar as they relate to t.l1e
lands subject to Referral No. 6-
. Sections 5.4, 11.3 and 11.7 of the Port Darlington Secondary
Plan insofar as they relate to the lands subject to Referral No.
6.
D. The Municipality and the Referents have agreed that Referral No.6 should be settled
on the terms set out below,
NOW TIIEREFORE WITNESSETH THAT in consideration of the premises and
the covenants hereinafter expressed, and the sum of tW? ($2.00) dollars of lawful money of
Canada. now paid by each Party to the others (the receipt whereof by each Party is hereby
acknowledged), the Parties hereto covenant and agree to and with each other as follows:
1. The Mullicipality and the School Board acknowledge that in making this
Memorandum of Understanding, the Referents have relied on the provisions of the
letter from Mr. David Crame to Mr. Roy Mason dated June 17, 1997 a copy of which
is contained in Schedule "A" attached hereto. In addition, the Municipality and the
School Board agree with the Referents that paragraph numbered 4 of the aforesaid
letter from Mr. Crome to Mr. Mason dealing with the Elementary School site shall
be deemed to provide that if the School Board does not exercise the opfioll which
the Referents will grant to the School Board to purchase the Elementary School Site,
within nine years of registration of the p~an of subdivision, the Municipality will grant
to the Referents or to t.l1eir successors in title. an altcmative land use that is
ronsistent with good planning in t.l1e community,
-3-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
2 The Referents forthwith will write to the Ontario Municipal Board withdrawing their
request for the referral of the provisions of the Official Plan for the Municipality of
c1arington which are included in Referral No.6.
3. The Municipality, the School Board and the Referents will request the Ontario
Municipal Board to modify the provisions of the Port Darlington Secondaty Plan
which are included in Referral No. 6 by deleting section SA thereof and as so
modified, to approve the provisions of the Port Darlington Secondaxy Plan which are
included in Referral No 6 pursuant to the Planning Act.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals
the day and year first above written and the Parties hereto have hereunto affixed their
corporate seals by the hands of their proper officers duly authorized in that behalf.
SIGNED, SEALED AND
DELIVERED
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
THE CO:RPORATION OF nm
MUNIClPALrlY OF CLARINGTON
Mayor
.<
Clerk
NORTH lAKE ESTATES INe.
Per:
Name:
Title:
Per:
Name:
Title:
.
4-
I )
) BENNETl' ESTATES INe.
. )
)
) Per:
) Name: Title:
. )
)
)
I ) Per.
) Name: TitJe:
)
I )
) BENNElT DEVELOPMENTS INe.
)
. )
)
) Per:
I ) Name: Title:
)
)
I )
) Per:
) Name: Title:
I )
) .<
) NORTllUMBE1u.AND-CLAIUNGTON BOARD
. ) OF EDUCATION
)
)
I ) Per:
) Name: Title:
)
I )
I
I
I
I
I
SCHEDULE "A"
/() MlJNICJI'IlUTYOI'
_U]al'ingtOri
O","AAlQ
11 June 1991
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr. Roy Mason
1<LM PlamUug Partners IIIe.
Urban Planners and Development Consultants
1880 Keele Street, Suite W
Conc:ocd, Ontmo
UK 4G7
Dear Sir:
Reo ReftuaJ No. , to the aariqtlm Ollic:iaJ Pia.
NortII Lake Estate$, Bea,.. Ectata Iae. md BeIII1ctt DeftIopmenllne.
Our File: PLN 3U:z.6
This letter i.s prepared in re$poDSe to your letter of ll111e 13, 1m with 1'apect to the matters
discussed at our meetiDg of lune 2, 1991. It will clarify the Mlmicipality'. position and proposed
principles of settlement. For the sate of completeaess, this letter repeats ID&Ily of the matte%s
addressed in your letttl' addiDg cotreetion, darificalioD VI' daboration whore D<<eSSUy. This would
allow this letter to be lIChecluled to ."7 settkmem ~ if It Is accepta1lIe 10 your client.
1. A<<ess from Type '0 Amrial Road
~ C Arterial Roads are intended to _e 1_ 'fOlumes of traffic at510wcr spctds tban other
arterial road&. AccordiDg1y, the poJldcs of the Official Plan cIiscourage dim:t ao:ess in residential
areas "Vith the exception of ap:utment or to'iIllbou!e blocb. PwI tlInIiIIg lIIovemeJll$ WQU\d be
perum~d to these type of d~lopmeDrs. . ..:
Direct access to low density housiDg on Type C Arterial Roads. is discouraged but n~ totally
prohibited. Desigli soIuliollS sUCIl as lIanbge lots, rear lanes or olller possible means of Iimitiug
acc:ess would 1>0 explored allhe subdivision stage. H_r, tbe MlIIlicipa\ity woUld be prql&ted
to Ilo::ept SOD1C Waited nUJl1ber of direct aCCie$S driveways onto the Type C Arterial Road.. As you
aa aware, it is the MlIlIicipality'. pl3Dlliug policy to develop a pukwayroad in the Port DarlingtOn
area. Full turning movements would not be possible to low deIIslty hOllSillg frollting onto the Type
C AneriaJ Read..
2. Waterft'oDt G~1nI'&3'
The Waterfronl Ofeenway ~fUliOll on Map.A of the Secon<Iary P1an is comprised of twO
"^""pmteDts. Th.e fust Is the Regulatory Shoreline Area idelltlfted Oil Map B of the Secoudaty PIm.
'Ibcsc arc the IlIlIds subject to f1oodU1g. crosiOll and/or dynuuic beach constraints. The second
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPAlITY OF CLAAINGTON
@
.~
I i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Roy Masolt
17 June 1991
Page 2_
component is the tableland area ...hieb is identified 1$ a DiStrict Pal'k. The precise bC)Wldary of the
total Watemont Greenway would be detennined through the considenouon of a developme1lt
appUcatioD. These lands would COIIIprise the required parldand declication for this development and
any additional lands which the Municipality would ac:quire.
3. Type C Arterial Road . RigliMC-Way W"Jdtb
As noted aboVe. tile ~I R.oa4 Is to be bIIilt to & panwa.y standard. Residemial development
is i~tified on the north side, the part and gtCCllWll)' on the south side. The MUDicipality's policy
is that the developer dedicate the rig1It-of-way with a width of 30 meues without -"jIClUaUon in
the normal 00= of subdivision approvaL Provided that the project is induded in tile Ilevelopm-
CI1arges By-la.... the dewlopcr is respoasible for development costs, of a 10 metre w:ban lOadway.
Any ad.<liti<mal costs. iDc;1uding those associated. with the central 'ooulevud, would be the
Municipality's QlSt funded d1rough Dcvcl9JlmeDt Qarp.
4. Elemeatary Scbool Site
After discussiollS with the School Board, ihe Municipality is wiIIilIg to withdraw policy 5.4 of the
Se<:ondaIy Plan. This would, in essence, maIc'I: the P1atI8lIClIt on the issue of a default 1aDd use
designation and the neceaity for an amendlllCllt to the P1atI if the School Boaud deem.s the site
IUlDCOeSSlIry, 'Ibis matter WOllld have to be adlkessed at !he tiD1e of svch an event.
.,
<
S. Local Trail
The local trail sho'M\ on the north aide of the development is lntOllded to proYide lntemal
neighbaurhood eonMCtiOllS to parb, schoOlS and open space ~ems. This trail could be located
as part of the berm required to Ibield relideDts frO.lll the raillil1e 1Nt it would b&ve to be located
011 the south side. A five moue Ejght-of-way 1"OIIl<l be desirable to a<:count lot a 2 metre trail and
to provide planting strips adjaeel1t to the trail ilSelf. Where subdivision design ponnits, the uan may
also be loc:ated with a local road ano-ce as part of the sidewalk system.
CoDdasioD
Provided that this letteT is acccplable to your client, and with regard to item 4 also to the
Northambcrland-ClarlngtoD ScIlool Board, I C8I1 insuu<:t the MunicipaUty's 5OIidtor to prepare a
simple agreelllent of $ettlemeut. Said agr_CJJt would reference the principles of settlement
contaiDc:d In the letter and indic:atc that Municipality. the School Board IIId your dient agr~ to:
1. request the Ontuio Mwlicipa! Board to clclcte Sectiona S.4 of the Pott DarliDgton
Secondazy P1a1l; and
Roy MasoD p 3
age ..
17 JUlle 1997
2. request the OIllario Munil:ipal Board to approve all other poli(jes and land use
designations In the Qarington Official Plan and the Pon Darlington Neigbbo\lfhood
Secondaty Plan as refened to the Board by your dien!.
By copy of this letter, r am requestiDg the fOl'lllal COlle1lllence of the Northumbedand-CIarington
School Baa:rd on a without prejudke basis.
As I am leaving on vacation shortly, I Deed YOut response by Wednesday, June 18 at 12:00 1100n.
This would enable me to anange for the agreement to be pmpared and the appropriate report to
be forwarded to the ll1iy 7th meetillg of Council.
If you wi$h to discuss this matter further or require any other darific:atioll, please clo not hesitate
to tOnract me at your carliest ~lIience.
YOutll trUly,
Da:' . Crolne, Manager
Co~ Planning Branch
DlC.df
c;: Ray Floyd, Cenuehill Coxporali<n>
Paul Brace. Northumberland-CIariDgtoll Board. of EducatiOll
TollY CalmeUa, Public Worb
Dennis Hcf!eroD. Solicitor
_ TOTR.. PAGE.09 _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT NO.2
LOT 8 LOT 7 LOT 6
UtLLJ\~EUNE ROAD II
LOT 5
\
~
o
0::
~
0::
E
z
i'5
m
13
~
z
o
(f)
(f)
W
o
Z
o
o
(HIGHWA
y 401)
ROAD
'7_ ...-. !Z_.
---0
IE
~
~
(/)
~
0::
z
w
~
o
0::
m
E
z
i'5
m
..
i
LAKE ONTARIO
.
96-016
REFERRAL REQUEST NO.6
NORTH LAKE ESTATES INC., BENNETT ESTATES INC. AND
BENNETT DEVELOPMENTS INC.
Part of Lots 5 and 6, Broken Front Concession,Bowmanville
Matters Reauested to be Referred:
. Type C arterial road along BowlT)anville waterfront on Map B
. Section 9.5.5(9), 19.5.3 and 23.10.4 of the Official Plan
. Designation of Local Trail and Public Elementary School on Map A of the
Secondary Plan
. Sections 5.4, 11.3 and 11.7 of the Secondary Plan
Dale: AUGUST 18 1997
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Meeting:
Report #:
Subject:
REPORT 116
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
l14~~K:mwKll1l'rn~IlCX
REPORT
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
File #
Res. #
By-Law #
<'<milt! J 9 fiJf;)#:
PROPOSED TRANSFER STATION
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the
following:
1.
THAT Report No. ADMIN-39-97 be received;
2.
THAT council direct staff to prepare and present to the
Ontario Realty Corp. a Conditional Offer of Purchase and
Sale, covering the approximately 13 acre site located at 178
Darlington-Clarke Townline in the amount of $100,000, once
all the relevant documentation covering the appraised value
of the lands and the cost of environmental clean-up, has
been reviewed by staff;
'.
3.
THAT the offer be conditional on the Municipality of
Clarington being awarded a Certificate of Acceptance from
the Ministry of the Environment to operate a Waste Transfer
S~ation on the site, in a given period of time; and,
4. TP~T a copy of this report, together with Council's
decision, be forwarded to the Commissioner of Works for the
Region of Durham, and Canadian Waste Services Inc.
1 . O. B.Ol.CKGROUND
1.1. E=fective December 31, 1994, The Municipality of Clarington
e~tered into a five year contract with Laidlaw Waste Systems
L~d. for the collection of residential waste within the
~~nicipality. Once collected, Laidlaw delivered same to the
B~ock West Landfill site in Pickering, under the direction
c= the Region of Durham, who has the responsibility of waste
d~sposal for the member municipalities within the Region.
1.2. C~ June 11, 1996, the Regional Works Department advised
Regional council that Metropolitan Toronto intended to close
t~e Brock West Landfill Site which resulted in Durham making
c~her arrangements for the disposal of waste.
~..",.IX\ .....
".0'" \t::!j ,,<C'Cl<
",'<<nl I:<ClI""^' '"
1.3. In the same report to Regional Council, staff outlined an
agreement whereby three separate contracts would be entered
into regarding waste disposal.
1.4. On September 3, 1996, the Regional Council directed staff to
enter into an agreement with Laidlaw Waste Systems for the
haulage and disposal of approximately 13,400 tonnes per year
of residential solid waste from the Municipality of
Clarington, until December 31, 1999.
1.5. In entering into this agreement with the Region of Durham,
Laidlaw Waste proposed to utilize the existing transfer
facilities at Pebblestone Multi-Services in Whitby until a
proper transfer station could be established in the
Municipality of Clarington, at which time Laidlaw would then
dispose of the Clarington waste at their licensed disposal
site near Napanee, Ontario.
1.6. On October 21, 1996, under Report # WD-35-96, Clarington
Council advised the Region of Durham of their support for
the establishment of a waste transfer station in the
M~~icipality of Clarington, directing staff to work with
Laidlaw regarding a site presently owned by the Ministry of
Transportation, consisting of approximately 13 acres,
lccated at the Darlington/Clarke Townline Road, just north
0: Highway 401, known as 178 Darlington-Clarke Townline.
2.0. REVIEW AND COMMENT
2.1. T'-~ SITE
Fc~ the past number of months, staff has been negotiating
w~=h the Ontario Realty Corp. regarding the site in
q~2stion. After a lengthy process, we have now been
s'..:ccessful in having the site declared "surplus" by M.T.O.,
a~i are presently in a position to put forth a Conditional
O::er of Purchase and Sale to Ontario Realty Corp.
2.2. S=~E CONDITION
T~2 site in question has been used for the past number of
Y2ars by M.T.O. as a works yard, primarily for the
~a~ntenance of Highway #2, in the Clarington area, and has
02::ome "surplus" since M.T.O. passed the responsibility for
E~~hway #2 onto the Region of Durham. However, since the
s~=e has been used for the storage of salt and fuel for the
~a~ntenance equipment, there is some environmental clean-up
t~at must be done prior to the disposal of the property.
2.3. L~"::D VALUE
Ka understand from Ontario Realty Corp. that they have a
ra::ent evaluation of the property that establishes a value
c: approximately $135,000. The cost of environmental clean-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
up of the site has been estimated in the are of $30,000. We
are presently awaiting both of these reports from Ontario
Realty Corp., who have agreed to provide copies of same.
3.0. CONDITIONAL OFFER OF PURCHASE AND SALE
3.1. As the site is to be used as a waste transfer station, there
seems to be no reason to proceed with the environmental
clean-up at this time. Under the circumstances it is
recommended that staff be given the authority by Council to
prepare and present a Conditional Offer of Purchase and Sale
in the amount of $100,000 once both of the above-mentioned
reports have been verified.
3.2. This offer would be based on the environmental clean-up NOT
being carried out by the Ontario Realty Corp., and would
also have a "hold-harmless" clause written into the
agreement that would release the Province from all future
liability that may result from the lack of environmental
clean-up.
3.3. The offer would also be conditional on the Municipality of
Clarington being awarded a Certificate of Acceptance from
the Ministry of the Environment for the operation of a Waste
Management Transfer Station on the site within a given
period of time.
4.0. CA?ITAL AND OPERATIONAL FUNDING
4.1. The necessary Capital funding for the project would be
a,.ailable in the Garbage Impact Reserve Account (Account
#2900-ll-X) which presently has a balance in excess of 2.8
mi~lion dollars. In regards to the operating costs of the
p~~ject, it would be staff's intention to negotiate an
o~erational contract with Canadian Waste Services Inc.,
p~eviously Laidlaw, who presently hold the waste collection
contract for the Municipality, thereby leaving no
o~erational costs with the Municipality and providing a
rental income from the property. Any final agreement on
c~erations will be presented to Council for approval.
5.2 ~E=~MMENDATIONS
5.1. I~ is respectfully requested that Council direct staff to
pcesent a Conditional Offer of Purchase and Sale, based on
t~e foregoing report, to the Ontario Realty Corp. in the
a~~unt of $100,000 covering the lands in question.
Respec~=ully submitted,
T./j~
h. H. :o~ockwell,
C~~e= ~jministrative Officer
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW 97-175
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By.law of the former
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle.
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the MunlcipalKy of Clarington deems It
advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the former Corporation of the Town
of Newcastle in accordance with application DEV 96-{)22.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Schedule "1" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zone designation from "Holding-General Industrial Exception ((H)M2-
15)" to "General Industrial Exception (M2-15)" as illustrated on the attached
Schedule "N hereto.
2. . Schedule "A" attached hereto shallfonn part of this By-law.
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing thereof, subject to
the provisions of Section 36 df.,the Planning Act.
By-Law read a first time this 18th day of August 1997.
By-Law read a second time this 18th day of August 1997.
By-Law read a third and finally passed this 18th day of August 1997.
Mayor
Cierk
I
I
. THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPAIJTY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NUMBER 97-176
I
Being a by-law to amend By-Law #88-159,
being a by-law to establiah a poliey
respecting Worldng Funds Reserves.
I
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington considers it
desirable to re-establish the policies respecting Working Funds Reserves;
I
I
AND WHEREAS Section 163(2) of the Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended, provides, that
"every Municipality and every board, commission, body or local authority established or
exercising any power or authority with respect to municipal affairs under any general or special
Act in an unorganized. township or unsurveyed territory may in each year provide in the estimates
for the establishment or maintenance of a Reserve Fund for any purpose for which it has
authority to apend funds:
I
NOW THEREFORE, Be It Enacted and It fa Enacted as a By-law of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington that By-Law #88-15,9 bereby be amended as (ollows:
I
.
That the Woddng Funds Resene be renamed as the Working Funds and Rate
Stabilization Reserve;
. That the policy respecting the Worldng Funds Reserve be amended to include:
I
4. . That on an annual basi&, any aurplus for the year automatically be
transferred into this reserve to be accessed annually through the budgct
process for mill rate stabilization purposes.
I
By-Law read a lirat and aecond time this 18th dsy of August 1997.
I
By-Law read a third time and fmally passed this 18th dsy of August 1997.
I
Mayor
I
Clerk
I
I
I
I
I
I
THE CORPORATION OF THE 'l'OWN OF N&iCASTLE
BY-LAW 88-~
being a by-law to establish a policy respecting
Working Funds Reserves
WHEREAS the Council of the COrporation of the TOwn of Newcastle considers it
desirable tore-establish the policies respecting WOrking Funds Reserves;
AND WHEREAS Section 308 (1) of The Municipal Act, R~S.O. 1910, as amended,
provides, that "every Municipality and every board, commission, body or local
authority established or exercising any power or authority with respect to
municipal affairs under any general or special Act in an unorganized township
or unsurveyed territory may in each year prOVide in the estimates for the .
establishment or maintenance of a Reserve Fund for any purpose for which it
ha~ authority to spend funds:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENAcrED AND IT IS ENACTED lIS A BY-LAW OF THE CORPORATION
OF THE 'l'OWN OF NEWCASTLE lIS POLLOl'/S:
Policy:
1. That a policy is hereby established Whereby an amount be included in
the annual estimates of the ToWn to be transferrred to the Wbrking
Funds Reserve.
2. That the balance in the WOrking Funds Reserve by allowed to float within
target limits of 5% to 10% of the current year's total MUnicipal pottion
of the tax billing.
3. That the Treasurer be authorized, after any given year-end, to transfer
to the General capital Reserve, any funds that are no longer required to
meet the cash requirements of the previous year.
By-Law read a fiut time this 24th
By-Law read a second ti.... this 24th
day of October
day of October
24th day Qf October
1988
1988
By Law read a third and final time this
1988
er
~
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW 97-177
being a by-law to authorize the execution
of a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington and North Lake Estates Inc.,
Bennett Estates Inc., Bennett Developments
Inc., and the Northumberland-Clarington Board
of Education
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HEREBY ENACTS
AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute,
on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington and seal with the Corporate Seal, a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington and North Lake Estates Inc., Bennett Estates
Inc., Bennett Developments Inc., and the Northumberland-
Clarington Board of Education (Referral No. 6 of the
Clarington Official Plan).
2. THAT the Memorandum of Understanding attached hereto as
Schedule "A" form part of this by-law.
'.
.
By-law read a first and second time this 18th day of August 1997
By-law read a third time and finally passed this 18th day of
August 1997
MAYOR
CLERK
SCHE1)ULE "A"
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
THIS MEMORANDuM OF UNDERSTANDING made as of this day
of August, 1997.
BET WEE N:
The Corporation of the Municipality of
Qarington
("Municipality")
OF TIIE FIRST PART
- and -
..
North Lake Estates Ine., Bennett Estates Ine. and
Bennett Developments Ine.
("Referents")
OF TIlE SECOND PART
- and -
The Nortbumberiand-Qarington Board of
Education
'<
("School Board'~
OF THE THIRD PART
WITNESSETH TllAT:
A By letter dated DecembCr 13, 1996 addressed to Ms. Diana Macri, SecretaI)' and
QUef Administrative Officer, Ontario Municipal Board, from Mr. A.L. Georgie~
Commissioner of Planning for the Regional MuniCipality of Durham ("Region") the
provisions which are the subject of Referral No.6 of the Official Plan for the Municipality
of Qarington ("Oarington Official Plan") were referred to the Ontario Municipal Board
pursuant to section 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, e.P.13, as amended to the datc
of the Region's letter ("PlannIng Act").
-2-
B. The Referents are tbe owners of the lands now in the Municipality of aarington
which are more particularly described as comprising Part of Lots 5 and 6, Broken Front
Concession. former Township of Darlington, now the Municipality of Clarington ("Landsj.
C. Referral No.6 comprises the following provisions of the Clarington Official Plan and
the Port Darlington Secondary Plan:
. Those lands shown as Referral No.6 on Map A of the Port Darlington
Secondary Plan.
. That portion of the Type C Arterial shown on Map B3.
. Section 9.5.5(g), 19.5,3. and 23.10.4 insofar as they relate to the
lands subject to Referral No. 6-
. Sections 5.4, 11,3 and 11.7 of the Port Darlington Secondary
Plan insofar as they relate 10 the lands subject 10 Referral No.
6.
D. The Municipality and the Referents have agreed that Referral No.6 should be settled
on the terms set out below,
NOW THEREFORE wrmESSEl'H THAT in consideration of the premises and
the covenants bereinafter expressed, lIDd the S1DI1 of: two ($2.00) dollars of lawful money of
<
Canada, now paid by each Party to the others (the receipt whereof by each Party is hereby
acknowledged), the Parties hereto covenant and agree to and with each other as follows:
1. The Municipality and the Scl1oo1 Board acknowledge that in making this
Memorandum of Understanding, the Referents have relied on the provisions of the
letter from Mr. David Crome to Mr. Roy Mason dated June 17, 1997 a copy of which
is contained in Schedule "A" attached hereto. In addition, the Municipality and the
School Board agree with thc Referents that paragraph numbered 4 of the aforesaid
letter from Mr, Crome to Mr. Mason dealing with the Elementary School site shall
be deemed to provide that if the School Board does not exercise the option which
the Referents will grant to the School Board to purchase the Elementary School Site,
within nine years of registration of the plan of subdivision, the Municipality will grant
to the Referents or to their successors in title, an alternative land use that is
consistent with good planning in the community.
-3-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2- The Referents forthwith will write to the Ontario Municipal Board withdrawing their
request for the referral of the provisions of tbe Official Plan for tbe Municipality of
c1arington which are included in Referral No.6.
3. The Municipality, the School Board and the Referents will request the Ontario
Municipal Board to modify the provisions of the Port Darlington Secondary Plan
which are included in Referral No. 6 by deleting section 5.4 thereof and as SO
modified, to approve the provisions of the Port Darlington Secondary Plan which are
included in Referral No 6 pursuant to the Planning Act.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals
the day and year first above written and the Panics hereto have hereunto affixed their
corporate seals by the hands of their proper officers duly authorized in that behalf.
.,
SIGNED, sEALED AND
DELIVERED
,
I
L
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
THE COJU>ORATlON OF nm
MUNICIPALITY OF CLi\RlNGTON
Mayor
Clerk
NORTH LAKE ESTATES me.
Per.
Title:
Name:
Per.
Tide:
Name:
I
I
I )
)
I )
)
)
I )
)
)
)
I )
)
)
I )
)
, )
r. )
I
)
)
I )
)
)
I )
)
)
I )
)
)
I )
)
)
I )
)
)
11 )
i
II
i
,
I
I
)1
-4-
BENNETl' ESTATES INC.
Per:_
Name: Title:
Per;
Name; Title:
BENNEIT DEVELOPMENTS INe.
Per:
Per:
Name; Title:
Name: Title:
"
NORTHUMBERLAND.CLARINGTON BOARD
OF EDUCATION
Per:
Name: Title:
'.
SC~EOULE "A"
/C) M\JN~O~
_uJarington
Q1<TAAIO
17 June 1997
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr. Roy Mason
1<L'-l PlamUng PartDct$ llICo
Urban PlaIlIlet$ and Development Consultants
7880 Keele Street, Suite 21J7
Concord, Ontuio
UK 4G7
Dear Sir:
..
Reo Reftfl'al No. , to the aarla&tOn OfllcW 1'11.
North Lake Estates. Benn. Estates IDe. and BemJett DeYdopment IDt.
Our File: PLN 3U:U
This lcner is prepared in response to yow letter of June 13, 1997 with respe~ to the mattet$
disCl.!s....d a.t our meeting of lune 2. 1991. It wi1I darif)' the Momidpalitfs position and proposed
principles of settlement. Fot tho sake of completenm, this lener repeatS many of the matten
addressed in your letter adding correction, clarification or elaboration where ncom3J}'. This would
allow this letter to be scheduled to any ~ttlClDet1t apment if It is acceptable to your client.
1. Access trom Type 'CO Arterial Road
Type C Arterial Roads are intended to move 1000er "Illumes of traffic at slower spcMs thaIl other
arterial roads. Accm:d!Dg1y. the policies of the Official Plan disCOIIIage direct ao:ess 111 residential
areas "l'ith the exceptiOD of apartment or toWIll1- blocks. Pull tunling movemell~ wowd be
pcanitled. to these type of developments. . ..
. .
Direct access to low density housing on Type C Arterial Roads is discounr;ed but nOt totally
prohibited. DC$igli solutio lIS such as 6ankar;e IoU, rear lanes or other possible means of limiting
access would be ellPlored at the subdivision Stage. HOIV~r. tbe MlI1liclpality would be prepaTed
to accept some lilllited number of direct alXlCU driveways onto the Type C Arterial R?ad. As you
an aware. it is the MlIllicipa1ity's planning polley to dcvelop a pukWaYToad in the Port Darlington
area. Full turoing movemenlS wowd not be possible to low density housing fronting onto the Type
C Arterial Road..
:z. Watuft'oDt Gret"",
The Waterfronl Gtecnway deSlgnaliOD OD Map.A of the Secon.da%y P1M is comprised of twO
components. -r= rust Is the Regulatory Shoreline Area. identified on Map B of the Secondary Plan.
"Ibcsc are the lancl$ subject to noodin~ erosion and/or dynamic beach consU'8lntS. "!be se<>Olld
CORPORAnON 01' THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTOH
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
@I
I
I
I
I
II
11
II
II
II
,
Roy Mason
17 June 1997
Page 2_
component is the tableland area whicb is identified as a District Park. The precise boundary of the
total Waterfront GTeenway would be determined through the co2lSider:ation of a developmellt
application. These lands would comprise the required parkland dedication for this development and
any additional lands which the Manicipatity would acquire.
3. Type C Arterial Road . Right-of.Way Width
As noted above, the Arterial Roaells to be built to a parkway standard. Residential development
is identified on the north side, the parIc and grecnway on the south side. The M1lIIicipality's policy
is that the developer dedicate the right-of-way with a width of 30 metres without compensation in
the normal course of $1Ibdivision approva1. Provided that the project is illC1uded in the Developmeut
Charges By-law, the developer is responsible for develOJ'lMDt costs. of a 10 metre utban roadway.
kly additional costs, induding those associated with the central boulevard, would be the
Municipality's cost funded waugh Ikvcl?pmCDt Charges.
II
i
4.
Elementary School Site
II
After discussions with the School Board, the Municip&lity is 'RiI1illg to withdraw policy 5.4 of the
Secondary Plan. This would, in essence. make the Plan silent on the issue of a default latId use
designation and the DCCe$Sity for an amendment to lbe Plan if the School Bo~ deems the silC
wmecessary, This matter would have to be addressed at the tizne of such an event.
II
S. Local Trail
The local trail shown 011 the north side of the development is Intended to prOYide inlCrnal
neighbourhood connections to paries, sehoolsand open space systems. This tni1 could be located
as pan of tbe &enn required to shield residents from the nil line but it would have to be located
on the south side. A five metto right-of-way would be desirable to account fot a 2 metre ttail and
to provide planting strips adjacent to the trail itSelf. Whero subdivision design permits, the trail may
also be located with a locat road allowance as part of the siclowalk system.
il
Condusion
Provided that this letter is acceptable to )'0\11' client, and with regard to item 4 also to the
Nonhumberland-OaringtOll School Boud, I can iIlstrua the MWlicipality'a solicitor to prepare a
simple agreement of.seltlemellL Said agreemellt would reference the principles of settlement
a>ntaincd In the letter and indiClllC that Maniclpality. the School Board and your client agree to:
I. request the Onlario Municipal Board to delete Sections. 5.4 of the Pon Dnlington
Secondary Plan; and
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Roy Mason Page J..
11 June 1991
2. request the OntariO Municipal Board to approve all other policies and land use
designations in the Qarington Official Plan llD.d the Port Darlington Neigbbourbood
Secondary Plan as referred to the Board by your client.
By copy of this letter, 1 am requesting the formal conco.rrenc:e of the Notthumberland-Carington
School BolU'd on 8 without prejudice basis.
A$ 1 am leaving on vacation shorlly, laeed your response by Wednesday, June 18 8tI2:00 noon.
This would enable me to arrange for the agreement to be prepared and the appropriate report to
be forwarded to tbe July 7th meeting of Council.
If you wish to discuss this matter furtbet or require any other darifica1ion, please do not besitate
to c;ontact me at your earliest c;ollVellienc:e.
.,
Yours troIy,
D . J. c..ome, Manager
Co=lUIity Planning Btancb
DlC"df
a:: Ray floyd. Centrehill Corpotalion
Paul Brace, Northumberland-C1arinr,ton Board of Education
Tony Cannella, l'ublic Works
Dennis Hefferon, Solicitor
** lUTA.. PAGE.09 **
I
II
II
I
II
II
I
II
II
I
II
t
ATTACHMENT NO.2
LOT 8 LOT 7
U tLLJ \BASEUNE ROAD II
LOT 6
.LOT 5
I
o
~
a::
o
<(
o
a::
ti
z
Q
Ql
MA,CDONA,LD
-CA,RT7E:R
I"RE:IOWA, Y
III
Ql
~
(HIGHWA,Y
401)
ROAD
z
o
(f)
(f)
W
c..>
Z
o
c..>
~
~
III
q~~ ~_.
ti
z
z
w
m
z
w
~
o
OC
In
~
a::
LAKE ONTARIO
96-016
REFERRAL REQUEST NO.6
NORTH LAKE ESTATES INC., BENNETT ESTATES INC. AND
BENNETT DEVEL.OPMENTS INC. .
Part of Lots 5 and 6, Broken Front ConcessiOn, Bowmanville
*
13
,.
.",
Matters Reauested to be Referred:
. Type C arterial road along Bowmanville waterfront on Map B
. Section 9.5.5(g), 19.5.3 and 23.1004 of the Official Plan
. Designation of Local Trail and Public Elementary School on Map A of the
Secondary Plan
. Sections 504, 11.3 and 11.7 of the Secondary Plan