The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutADMIN-13-92 I THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # L/ ;,3XSCf.C;E Res. # (\PA -{ br.- q,). By-Law # Date: December 7 1992 Report #: ADMIN. 13-Sire #: Subject: Correspondence dated October 21 1992 from the City of Gloucester regarding One-Tier Government in the Region of Ottawa/Carleton Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. That Report ADMIN. 13 - 92 be received; and 2. That the correspondence from the Mayor, City of Gloucester, be received for information. REPORT: 1. At its meeting of November 9th 1992, the Council considered the correspondence from the City of Gloucester (refer to Attachment #1) regarding One-Tier Government and referred same to the Chief Administrative Officer for review and the preparation of a report to the General Purpose and Administration Committee. 2. In May of this year, the Honourable David Cooke appointed a Committee to review the Region of Ottawa/Carleton. The essence of the correspondence from Her Worship Claudette Cain, Mayor of the City of Gloucester is that there is growing concern over any movement towards a Single-Tier Government within the subject Region. Clearly, this position is based on the financial impact such a proposal would bring about together with the fact that local autonomy perhaps would be reduced significantly. 11 0 1 RECVCLED I:t:\ PAPIER PAPfR \tJ:1 RECYCLE THIS IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 3. The consulting firm of Price Waterhouse has conducted a Study of the financial impact of One-Tier Government in Ottawa/Carleton as part of the above review. The purpose of the study was to address the overall impact on the cost of providing municipal services and the impact on the taxes paid by individual tax payers on average across the Region, and in each of the lower-tier municipalities. The analysis excludes a review of the structure and costs of school boards. The Executive Summary of the consultant's report is provided as Attachment #2. 4. The results of the exercise indicate the significant cost and tax increases that would result under One-Tier Government. This is largely due to the increases in service levels towards the highest common denominator, that is, a move substantially to the higher levels of services in the largest area municipality (the City of Ottawa). In a general sense, the study concludes that the larger municipalities would tend to pay the same or slightly less and the smaller municipalities would tend to pay more under One-Tier Government. 5. Although the report raises a variety of questions, it was not the intention that it be reviewed critically. 6. A copy of the consultant's report is available for review in the Clerk's Department. Respectfully submitted, ~I )\ L{ l U If \. Lawrence E. Kotsef Chief Administrati LEK:nof att. 1102 4 12 fl' '92 cnJNCIL DIRECl'IOO ATTACHMENT #1 \D)f?~~OW' REPORT ADMIN. ~~~L, ~~J OCT 2 0 1992 TOWN OF NEWC^STLE MAYOn'S OFFICE TO 13 - 92 1400, place Blair Place P.O. Box / C.P. 8333 Gloucester, Ontario K1G 3V5 (613) 748-4115 Fax: (613) 748-0235 OCT 29 h;:. \' ;';~' :.tri., ." : ~b ~ 1'1' ~,l' {~, ;if) . ' IfJ,. ;',,' : "1 ,~V. , t ,~~ ,; , Claudette Cain MA YOR MAIRE Gloucester October 2, 1992 D15,T})~UTION CLERK Il.,.,.~L -- .-._-._~---.._--_..-..._-- AClt BYm".__ ORIGINAL ---.--.-,---- COPIES TO: Mayor Diane Hamre, Town of Newcastle, 40 Temperance Streeet, Bowmanville, Ontario. Ll C 3A6 I Dear Mayor Hamre: i "r-'l'['L//-c= I. ,__ '_._~__ ~....-::._.~__~':""~'..::.:.:..:;.;~+:,~,:;;.... I believe you have reason to be concerned about the future of your municipality. In April, the Provincial Government appointed an arbitrator, who recommended the demise of several municipalities in the London area. In May, the Honourable David Cooke appointed a Commissioner to review the region of Ottawa- Carleton. One-Tier Government, a reduction of municipalities and many other suggestions are being made without the benefit of an impact study. Price Waterhouse Inc. recently completed afinancial analysis of One-Tier Government in Ottawa-Carleton. It indicates potential increases of up to 77.5 million dollars annually. Yet, little or no regard seems to be given to future propeny tax increases or service level changes to our residents and businesses. Is your municipality next? It may sound impossible, but I urge you to examine the trend around the Province. I believe the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has a responsibility to demand that the Provincial Government be upfront and reveal its plan on amalgamation in Ontario. I also believe AMO must strongly urge the Minister to make a public commitment that the people will know the full impact of change in tenns of costs, accountability, and service levels - before such changes are made law. I l' ~l3 ' , ;;:". ,~ The Corporation of the City of Gloucester - La ville de Gloucester - 2 - Please take a few moments to write to Mr. Cooke, AMO and your MPP to receive assurances . that your municipality is not the next one to disappear in Ontario. Unless we present a united front, our municipalities may be at risk. 1 would be happy to discuss the present situation in Ottawa-Carleton with you, should you need more itifonnation. Sincerely, ~ Claudette Cain Mayor - . DISTRIBUTION CLERK -~-..._"......_-.._......._-_.. ACK. BY _____.____ ---....... ORIGINAL TO:__________... COPIES TO: FI! .., .. "", ...--.:.:.:.;,~.::'::';':':':;"~~-, , . 1400, place Blair Place P.O. Box I C.P. 8333 Gloucester, OntariO K1G 3VS (613) 748-4115 Fax: (613) 748-0235 Claudette Cain MAYOR MAIRE Gloucester October 6, 1992 The Honourable David Cooke, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario. M5G 2E5 Dear Mr. Minister: It is with very serious concern, that 1 bring to your attention, some incidents which have recently occurred during the review of regional refo171J in Ottawa-Carleton. The attached incidents have led me to question the objectivity of Commissioner Graeme Kirby and ultimately the review process. In your address to the AssociaJion of Municipalities of Ontario. on August 25, 1992, you gave me some assurance, as Mayor, that you want local solutions to local issues. Therefore 1 expect Mr. Kirby to reflect what the majority of taxpayers are saying to him, so that the Provincial Government can make an i1ifonned decision for Ottawa-Carleton. .1 believe it is equally important for constituents to be i1ifonned, so that they too can provide you with useful feedback. U1ifortunarely, Mr. Kirby's interim report contains absolutely no analysis or rationale of the suggestions he pUIS forward. In fact, there are many instances where i1ifonnation exists relaJive to financial implications and accountability issues, yet Mr. Kirby appears to have linle or no regard for possible implications of his direction. 1 am worried, because 1 represent 102,000 people directly and the interests of the whole region aJ RegioTUlI. Council. We deserve to know how any recommendations will impact on our taxes and on our services. Mr. Kirby seems to dismiss such questions as being parochial. 1 1 !) 4 The Corporation of the City of Gloucester - La ville de Gloucester - 2- I am scared too, because I am following the events in the London-Middlesex area. Is it your government's plan to wipe oUl all municipalities? Should not the Mayors and elected Councils ocross the Province be conce~ that they may be next? Your personal attention to what is really going on in Onawa-Carleton would be appreciated. I will be contacting you soon so that I may arrange to meet with you regarding this most important matter. Sincerely, ~t:;- .~ Claudene Cain Mayor cc: City Council Ottawa-Carleton Mayors Association of Municipalities of Ontario Regional ChaimuJn Mayors of Ontario SHOULD TAXPAYERS QUESTION THE OBJECTlVln OF THE REVIEW OF REGIONAL REFORM IN 01TA WA-CARLETON 1. Mr. Kirby attended and participated in all meetings with Price Waterhouse and municipal senior staff relating to the financial Implications of One-ner Government. In fac/, he. personally hmJ more direct involvement than all the Mayors in the Region put/oge/her. Furthennore, the consuhant worud toward and met Mr. Kirby's timetable, so that the financial findings could be included In his interim report. While the consultant's report was not public at that time, Mr. Kirby knew he could use the findings in preparing his interim analysis. Yet, Mr. Kirby has repeatedly said publicly that he hmJ no financial data and has instead chosen to dismiss the findings as somewhat irrelevant to the exercise. 2. Men Mr. Kirby briefed the Mayors on his interim report, he told us people wanted to be assured the taxpayer was getling fair value for their dollar. I asud him how that could best be accomplished in his view. Mr. Kirby responded that the Canadian Comprehensive Audit Foundation should be called upon on a regular basis, as it is the only credible and objective way to assess whether the tax dollar is 5pent effectively. The Financialltifo171UlJion Retum (FIR) and audited financial statements are submined to the Provincial Government annually. Is it reasonable to ask taxpayers' to pay for yet another consultant to study the books? Regional Chair, Peter Clark told Mr. Kirby more . outside consultants were not the answer. 3. The City of Gloucester retained thefirm o/Rethink Incorporated to conduct a Community Forum on Regional Reform. Community group leaders were invited to participate. Members of Council were asud to provide names of community leaders in their respective wards. On September 14, 1992 almost 90 individuals were brought together with Mr. Kirby for an evening of serious discussion and debate on this issue. This is a well recognized approach to obtaining feedback and input. In/act, Mr. Kirby was in full agreement that it would be a useful exercise. Our municipality has used the same approach for our leisure services delivery system and most recently in the development of a new housing project. ; rl5i -2- On September 21, 1992, Mr. Kirby OJtended a public meeting in Nepean and said the community forum in Gloucester had been stacked! In a private conversation, he told me that was so, because Council suggested some IIllmes. Who else knows the community leaders within our City? 4. Mr. Kirby has said several times publicly that the province has not given him enough funds to study the financial impacts of the proposals outlined in his interim report. Is it reasonable to expect change for the sake of change? 5. On September 14, 1992, Mr. Kirby said publicly that the Ollawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation (OCEDCO) refused to meet with him because they told him they were afraid the Mayors in the Region would cut off their funding. ~er his statement, / asked him privately if OCEDCO had actually made such a remark _ he said NO! This was his own conclusion. 6. On September 24, 1992, Mr. Kirby hosted a public meeting in Rideau Township. The Mayor of Rideau, read from a prepared text and pointed to a document released by a firm (Coopers Lybrand) which seemed to have reached conclusions different from those of Mr. Kirby. Commissioner Kirby then began to engage in verbal abuse and condescending language toward the Mayor, in public. This approach was used by Mr. Kirby on several occasions when a constituent brings up a point which doesn't seem to fit with his personal views. He gives the impression that he doesn't want to be corifused with facts. 7. On October 5, 1992, more than 800 people OJtended a public meeting in Gloucester, hosted by Mr. Kirby. /t was most evident that the main question was -What will be the cost impacts of your suggestions/recommeruUztions?- However, in summing up what he had heard, Mr. Kirby said -I heard go away and leave us alone-. Urifortunately, Mr. Kirby appears to have missed the point, once again. .A transcript of this meeting will be provided to you as soon as possible. 1400, place Blair Place P.O. Box I C.P. 8333 Gloucester, Ontario K1G 3V5 (613) 748-4115 Fax: (613) 748-0235 Claudette Cain MA YOR MAIRE Gloucester October 2, 1992 Mr. Joseph MauriTUlC, President , Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 250 Bloor Street East, Suite 701, Toronto, Ontario. M4W 1E6 Dear Mr. MauriTUlC: As you may know, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has appointed a Commissioner to review Regional Refonn in Ottawa-Carleton. As Mayor of Gloucester, I am very concerned that little or no regard is being paid to potential property tax increases or loss of service levels to our residents and businesses. One proposal is to go to One-TIer Govenunent. A Price Waterhouse Study, commissioned by all municipalities in the region and released on August 27, 1992, indicates potential increases of 77.5 million annually. Another suggestion would see the City of Gloucester disappear from the map. No impoct analysis has been done. The provincially appointed Commissioner advised that the province has not provided funds to analyze his recommendations. I strongly urge AMO to make representation before the Minister of Municipal Affairs to insist that such drastic changes and amalgamations be analyzed in tenns of costs/benefits - before legislation is introduced in the Province. I" 1 (', t,' , 'r:v The Corporation of the City of Gloucester - La vii Ie de Gloucester - 2- Personally, I feel that AMO has a responsibility to its Member municipalities in this instance, as the trend of the government appears to be toward doing away with the traditional municipality. I look forward to receiving the Association's position. Sincerely , loudene Cain ~ Mayor cc: Mrs. Kathleen Hunter, Executive Director, AMO City Council Regional Chair Mayors of Ontario ] ATTACHMENT #2 TO REPORT ADMIN. 13 - 92 ] ] ] Executive Summary J J This report is an assessment of the financial impact of the implementation of one. tier government in Ottawa-Carleton. "One-tier government" in this context means one single municipal government in the region, performing all municipal services presently provided by the existing 11 lower-tier governments and the Regional government. Our assessment is that one.tier government would increase annual expenditures of municipal government in the region by $25 million to $77 million, and would cost at least $12 million to $29 million in one-time implementation costs (see the schedule on the following page). The increase in annual operating costs would increase the average tax bill (excluding school taxes) by 5.5% to 16.5%. This impact would affect the taxpayers in existing municipalities differently. j J J j The financial data on which this report is based was derived predominantly from the 1991 Financial Information Returns filed by the municipalities and the Region with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. ] 1 ..j Costs are expected to rise largely because, under a one-tier structure, the efficient, low-cost operational approach of the smaller municipalities would be lost, and would not be compensated by any significant economies of scale. Most municipalities, and in particular the rural municipalities, have lower levels of service and lower administrative costs; both would tend to rise towards Ottawa levels. Ottawa's higher costs are driven largely by levels of service that are directly related to the services it must provide as the major urban centre of the Region and the fact that Ottawa provides most of the employment opportunities within the Region. It is also assumed that some of the benefit of voluntarism in the smaller municipalities would be lost. In addition, a one-tier government would probably have to create a regional police force, which would eliminate the benefit of policing obtained from J j J J j J 1, 1; f" 7 I I ' ! J -J J J J J ONE-TIER STUDY SUMMARY OF COST CHANGES I...... Lower End Upper End . ... of Range (2) of Range (1) Annual Expenditures ($ Millions) General Government 10 12 Fire 5 25 Police 4 7 Transportation and Environment 0 7 Recreation and Culture 5 24 Planning and Development 0.9 1.5 Total 24.9 77.5 One-Tlme 1fll)lementatlon Costs (3) 12 29 J J J J J J J J Notes: J, 1. The upper end of the range of cost increases generally assumes that costs would rise to Ottawa levels. J 2. The lower end of the range is based on the assumption that there would be aggressive management to prevent service levels from rising to Ottawa's levels. J 3. The cost range for implementation costs is mostly due to the uncertainty regarding the amount of these costs. J II J J 1 I 0'~ ] ] ] ] ) the Ontario Provincial Police at no charge. There would be some reductions in senior administrative staff, but this would be minimal compared to the cost increases. ] The upper end of the range of cost increases assumes that service levels and administration would move substantially to Ottawa levels, particularly for fire, police, recreation and culture, while the lower end assumes that increases would be kept to much lower levels through aggressive management. Any reductions below the lower end of our range would necessitate fundamental 're-engineering' of operations and administration, and would require significant political will. ] ] J Despite the fact that Ottawa has a higher cost structure and more debt per capita than other municipalities, its taxpayers would experience tax increases because Ottawa would have to share the benefit of the payments in lieu of taxes it obtains from the federal govemment. This would soften the blow for most other municipalities. Rockcliffe Park would also experience tax increases because of its sharing of large payments in lieu of taxes. The rural municipalities would experience tax increases because they would share in the higher relative costs of other municipalities, although this would be accompanied by higher service levels than they now receive. J ] J J J A key issue that cannot be quantified at this time is the extent of future costs that would have to be incurred to rehabilitate Ottawa's old infrastructure, primarily sewers. The City of Ottawa believes its capital budgets at existing levels will cover future requirements, but insufficient detailed analysis exists to be certain that there will not be significant cost increases over time. This could seriously affect the tax burden of taxpayers across the region under a one-tier structure. J J J iii J 1j9 J ] The fundamental conclusion of our analysis is that bigger is certainly not more efficient, from a financial perspective. One-tier government would be an expensive proposition. In addition, the tax effects cannot be calculated with certainty because of the unknown future infrastructure rehabilitation costs. 1 ] ] ] J ] ] J ] J J J J IV J J ., 1 1 (;'l Ii, ~IJ; The Municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton Study of the Financial Impact of One-Tier Government in Ottawa-Carleton Final Report August 27, 1992 I )ric() 11l1IerluJlI/.;(J . November 12, 1992 Mr. Larry Kotseff Chief Administrative Officer Municipality of Newcastle 40 Temperance St. Bowmanville, Ontario L1 C 3A6 f i\!,,\j ,r\ ii, l, :: ,J-.' J ( 1 , ~-t I j - / ,;' t' ", (,-J ,~uJ " \ \.. 'J OJ \" , (j. ~ , , t"" ,. ;:\' !' (~.J \, t/.-: ).....\,.. .J ~l, ~-JJ . ".J (\. , v .J Dear Mr. Kotseff Enclosed please find a copy of the report on One-Tier Government in Ottawa-Carleton which you have requested. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about the report. Please call me at 365-8869 should you wish to obtain elaboration on points in the report. \ t 4 \ \ " \.1) \ ' J~........ ,\. ... .......1 Yours truly -. / ' / /--11:;;::(/; ;;:tI[tt~-I; ac' '7" t ,/ l/ i',1 / John Simke Partner JS/cmp enc, - ... - - The Municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton ... Study of the Financial Impact of One-Tier Government in Ottawa-Carleton Final Report - August 27, 1992 ... - ... - - .... ... .... ... ... ... - - .. - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - .. - - - Table of Contents Page Executive Summary .................................... I. Introduction ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Approach and Methodology ........................ 3 III. Key Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 A. General Government Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 B. Fire Services ................................ 7 C. Police Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 D. Transportation and Environmental Services .......... 8 E. Recreation and Cultural Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 F. Planning and Economic Development .............. 9 G. Implementation... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 H. Tax Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 IV. The Cost Impact of One-Tier Government . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 A. General Government Expenditures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 B. Fire Services ................................ 18 C. Police Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 D. Transportation and Environmental Services .......... 23 E. Recreation and Cultural Services ................. 26 F. Planning and Economic Development .............. 29 G. Implementation Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 H. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 V. Debt, Reserves and Payments in Lieu of Taxes . . . . . . . . .. 34 VI. Impact on Taxpayers ............................. 36 A. Overall Cost Impact ........................... 37 B. Impact on Taxpayers in Various Municipalities ........ 37 C. Impact of Infrastructure Deficiencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 .. - - ... Executive Summary - - This report is an assessment of the financial impact of the implementation of one- tier government in Ottawa-Carleton. "One-tier government" in this context means one single municipal government in the region, performing all municipal services presently provided by the existing 11 lower-tier governments and the Regional government. Our assessment is that one-tier government would increase annual expenditures of municipal government in the region by $25 million to $77 million, and would cost at least $12 million to $29 million in one-time implementation costs (see the schedule on the following page). The increase in annual operating costs would increase the average tax bill (excluding school taxes) by 5.5% to 16.5%. This impact would affect the taxpayers in existing municipalities differently. - ... - - The financial data on which this report is based was derived predominantly from the 1991 Financial Information Returns filed by the municipalities and the Region with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. .. .. Costs are expected to rise largely because, under a one-tier structure, the efficient, low.cost operational approach of the smaller municipalities would be lost, and would not be compensated by any significant economies of scale. Most municipalities, and in particular the rural municipalities, have lower levels of service and lower administrative costs; both would tend to rise towards Ottawa levels. Ottawa's higher costs are driven largely by levels of service that are directly related to the services it must provide as the major urban centre of the Region and the fact that Ottawa provides most of the employment opportunities within the Region. It is also assumed that some of the benefit of voluntarism in the smaller municipalities would be lost. In addition, a one-tier government would probably have to create a regional police force, which would eliminate the benefit of policing obtained from - - ... - ... .. - .. .. .. .. .. ONE-TIER STUDY SUMMARY OF COST CHANGES , .. . Lower End Upper End ..... / . of Range (2) of Range (1) Annual Expenditures ($ Millions) General Government 10 12 Fire 5 25 Police 4 7 Transportation and Environment 0 7 Recreation and Culture 5 24 Planning and Development 0.9 1.5 Total 24.9 77.5 One-Tlm8IrT~lementatlon Costs (3) 12 29 .. - .. .... .. .. .. .. Notes: .. 1. The upper end of the range of cost increases generally assumes that costs would rise to Ottawa levels. .. 2. The lower end of the range is based on the assumption that there would be aggressive management to prevent service levels from rising to Ottawa's levels. .. 3. The cost range for implementation costs is mostly due to the uncertainty regarding the amount of these costs. .. II - .. - - - - - the Ontario Provincial Police at no charge. There would be some reductions in senior administrative staff, but this would be minimal compared to the cost increases. - The upper end of the range of cost increases assumes that service levels and administration would move substantially to Ottawa levels, particularly for fire, police, recreation and culture, while the lower end assumes that increases would be kept to much lower levels through aggressive management. Any reductions below the lower end of our range would necessitate fundamental 're-engineering" of operations and administration, and would require significant political will. .... - - Despite the fact that Ottawa has a higher cost structure and more debt per capita than other municipalities, its taxpayers would experience tax increases because Ottawa would have to share the benefit of the payments in lieu of taxes it obtains from the federal govemment. This would soften the blow for most other municipalities. Rockcliffe Park would also experience tax increases because of its sharing of large payments in lieu of taxes. The rural municipalities would experience tax increases because they would share in the higher relative costs of other municipalities, although this would be accompanied by higher service levels than they now receive. - - - - -, A key issue that cannot be quantified at this time is the extent of future costs that would have to be incurred to rehabilitate Ottawa's old infrastructure, primarily sewers. The City of Ottawa believes its capital budgets at existing levels will cover future requirements, but insufficient detailed analysis exists to be certain that there will not be significant cost increases over time. This could seriously affect the tax burden of taxpayers across the region under a one-tier structure. - - - iii - lit ... - .. - - The fundamental conclusion of our analysis is that bigger is certainly not more efficient, from a financial perspective. One-tier government would be an expensive proposition. In addition, the tax effects cannot be calculated with certainty because of the unknown future infrastructure rehabilitation costs. - - - - - - - - .... ... ... - iv - - - - - - I. Introduction - - Regional govemment was established in Ottawa-Carleton in 1969 to deliver certain municipal services across the region. These services, such as transportation and water, are provided by the Regional or 'upper-tier' govemment, while others, such as fire and policing, are provided by the 'lower-tier" governments of each city or township in the region. For many years, questions have been raised as to whether the current two-tier structure is most efficient. There are perceptions in some quarters of excessive numbers of elected representatives for the size of population served, duplicate administration and duplicate service delivery capacity, resulting in redundancy and excessive cost. Altemative models of municipal government for the region, including one-tier, have been proposed that, it is claimed, would result in significant savings to the taxpayers. The issue of the structure of municipal government in Ottawa.Carleton has been studied before on several occasions, most recently by the Bartlett commission. None of these reviews has been conclusive. - - - - ... - Earlier this year, the Minister of Municipal Affairs appointed Mr. Graeme Kirby as Commissioner to examine issues of regional reform in Ottawa-Carleton. In light of this Commission, the lower-tier governments in the region decided to commission an independent study to address the impact of creating one-tier government on Ottawa-Carleton. It was felt that the question of one-tier govemment needs to be examined independently, in light of the fact that there are strong views both pro and con on one.tier government in the community. Price Waterhouse was chosen to conduct the study, after a competitive proposal process. - - - - The purpose of this study is to assess the financial impact of one-tier government in Ottawa-Carleton. "One-tier government" in this context means one single municipal government in the region, performing all municipal services presently provided by - .. - - - - - .. the existing 11 lower-tier governments and the Regional government. There would be one political and administrative entity, with powers to tax all residents in the region. It is important to note that our mandate was to assess the impact of one-tier government in its "pure" form, as described above, and not variations on the theme, of which there are many. - - The study is intended to answer the following questions: - 1. What would be the overall impact on the cost of providing municipal services? - 2. What would be the impact on the taxes paid by individual taxpayers, both on average across the region, and in each of the present lower-tier municipalities? - It was recognized that the impact on taxpayers in each present lower-tier municipality may be different, and that the tax "redistribution" impact must be examined to provide a full assessment of impacts. .... - We have not, in our study, taken into account the possible impact of "market value assessment" which could be introduced in Ottawa-Carleton, and which would potentially have an important effect on the distribution of tax burden in the region. \t was felt that market value assessment is a separate issue and that it would confuse the impact of single-tier government to attempt to take into account a significant unrelated change that mayor may not occur. - - - Our mandate did not include addressing the structure and costs of school boards in any way, so discussions of the impact of one-tier government on taxes only addresses taxes paid for upper-tier and lower-tier municipal government, not for schools. - - 2 .... - - - - - II. Approach and Methodology - - Our fundamental approach to the study has been to obtain a thorough understanding of the operations and organization of the municipalities in the region, for each function and service, and to develop assumptions as to how the service delivery and administration would change if a one-tier government were introduced. Accordingly, the following has been the methodology we have employed in conducting the study: - - - 1. We reviewed past reports on the structure of municipal government in Ottawa. Carleton to obtain an understanding of how this issue has been examined before, and of data that could be relevant to this study. - 2. We developed a standard framework of data from each municipality, addressing all aspects of the municipalities' services, operations, organization, administration and financial position. - - 3. We met with officials in each of the 11 municipalities, and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC), to gather the required data, but more importantly, to obtain an understanding of the municipality. We discussed with officials, the nature of services provided, service levels, administrative structure, organization, staffing and salary levels, asset condition and future infrastructure development requirements. In effect, we obtained a snapshot picture of the state of each municipality's current position and of its key issues and problems. - .... - - 4. We assembled the data and developed a "base case" financial picture of each municipality, and consolidated for the region as a whole. The basic financial data was obtained from each municipality's 1991 "Financial Information Return" (FIR), - 3 ... .. - - - -- - which is the official financial retum filed with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Population statistics were obtained from the 1991 census, carried out by Statistics Canada. Where necessary, we broke down the FIR data into greater detail for the purposes of our analysis. such as in the case of "General Govemment" expenditures. which are aggregated in the FIR, but which we analyzed at a more detailed level. In order to assist in our financial analysis and calculations, we developed a computerized financial model. This model enabled us to accumulate costs for each municipality and on a consolklated basis, to see the impact of altemative assumptions, and to determine the impact of tax redistribution arising from one.tier government. - - - - We also developed a preliminary list of issues which we believe are relevant to assessing the impact of one-tier govemment. These included items such as varying service levels, potential economies of scale, potential duplications, potential increases in cost and implementation issues. - - - 5. We conducted work shops with officials of the municipalities, on major functions, in order to develop specific assumptions as to the impact of one-tier government. The functions for which work shops were conducted are: - ... · engineering and works; · recreation and libraries; · planning and development; and · general administration. .. - We did not conduct a work shop for fire or police, but worked with our Steering Committee which has representatives from both urban and rural municipalities. In addition, we did not conduct work shops on functions performed essentially only - 4 - - - - - .. at the upper-tier level at present, since we do not see such functions being affected by the creation of one-tier government. - - 6. We performed research on costs and mode of operations of Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton, which are unitary cities of approximately the same size as Ottawa.Carleton. This included direct site interviews with a number of Winnipeg city officials. Winnipeg was chosen because it consolidated into a unitary city in 1971 and has been able to see the impacts over a number of years. .. - - 7. As a result of the work shops and our research, we developed qualitative assumptions as to the impact of one-tier government for each service delivery or administrative function. - 8. We translated our assumptions into financial terms and, using our financial model, we developed a financial picture of the region under one-tier government. We also performed calculations about how the consolidated costs (net of revenues) for the region would be borne by taxpayers of the region. We determined how the taxpayers presently resident in each existing municipality would be affected by the redistribution of taxes that would occur as a result of pooling net costs under one-tier govemment. "'" .. .. - Throughout the assignment, we reported to a Steering Committee consisting of the Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs) of the cities of Gloucester, Nepean, Ottawa, the Village of Rockcliffe Park, and the Township of Rideau. We met with the Steering Committee as well as with other CAOs and with the mayors of the municipalities on several occasions through the course of the study, to discuss our assumptions and findings. - - .. 5 .. ... - - .. .... - .. - .... - - .... - - - - .... .- .... .. III. Key Assumptions The following is a summary of the major qualitative assumptions on which our analysis of cost increases was based. These are presented for each category of expenditures analyzed later in this report. More detailed discussion on each of these assumptions is contained in the next chapter of this report. A. General Government Administration 1. There would be 30-32 full-time elected representatives for the one.tier government, each of whom would have two full-time staff persons. 2. The administration of a one-tier govemment would tend to gravitate over a few years to a combination of Ottawa and RMOC policies and standards, and would tend to pay salary levels presently paid in Ottawa. . 3, There would be a reduction of 50-70 senior managers and computer staff as a result of the consolidation of administrative functions, and as a result of the implementation of a common computer system. 4. Bilingual services offered would be at the level presently offered by Ottawa. 5. Tax payment and other administrative services to the public would be conducted through a number of decentralized offices in the west, east, south and centre of the region. 6 - - - - - 6. There would be no reduction in need for office space, but there would be less need for public meeting space. Over time, existing space would be replaced by space more suited to the needs of a one-tier municipality. It would take several years to adjust space to meet requirements. - - B. Fire Services - 1. One fire department would be created. 2. There would be a significant reduction in the utilization of volunteer firefighters. - - 3. Equipment and crewing standards could rise across the region to the Ottawa level, although this is only one scenario. - C. Police Services - - 1. A regional police force would be created, and the use by smaller municipalities of the Ontario Provincial Police, at no charge, would cease. - 2. One scenario is that costs per call for services would rise to the level experienced in Ottawa at present. - - - 7 - - - - - - D. Transportation and Environmental Services - - 1. The coordination of road maintenance, snow clearing and other transportation and environmental services is reasonably satisfactory at present. There is no material duplication. - 2. Pressures for a common and accelerated approach to infrastructure rehabilitation could lead to a 10% annual increase in capital expenditures on transportation and environmental services. - - 3. There could be an increase in winter control standards in Ottawa to the standards experienced in other municipalities, with resultant increased cost. - E. Recreation and Cultural Services - - 1. Recreation service levels, which vary significantly across the region, would gravitate to the level that now exists in the larger municipalities. - 2. Capital expenditures would have to be increased to bring library facilities across the region up to a common standard. - 3. User fees could move toward the higher levels in some municipalities. This would partially offset the cost increases noted above. - - - B - - ... - - .. F. Planning and Economic Development - 1. There is presently little or no duplication between planning activities of the lower- tier municipalities and the RMOC. - - 2. Consultation in the planning process would evolve to a more intensive level than is presently the case in most municipalities, with a consequent increase in costs. This level would not, however, be as intensive as is the case presently in Ottawa. .. - 3. There would be no change in economic development resources, since the resources at the lower-tier level, and those employed by the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Authority, are involved in complementary rather than duplicative activities. - ... G. Implementation - 1. Costs would be incurred in: ... · implementing a common computer, record-keeping and communication system; - · redeploying staff across the region to fit an optimal service delivery strategy; .. · implementing a common identity campaign, such as standard logo, letterhead, etc.; · outplacing employees no longer required, and hiring additional staff in certain areas; and .. · disposing of sub-optimal facilities over time. - 9 - .. - - ... .. H. Tax Impact - 1. All assets, liabilities, revenues and expenditures would be pooled, and taxes would be assessed based on the pooled finances of the one-tier government. - - 2. There would be no change in the level of provincial grants obtained by the one- tier municipality. .. - - .. - - - - - .. 10 .. - - - ... .. IV. The Cost Impact of One-Tier Government - - In this section of the report, we explore the impact on costs of one-tier government. The revenue fund expenditures of each service delivery and administrative function is analyzed, and assumptions are made about what would happen to the level of expenditures under one-tier government. On the following page is an analysis of the 1991 expenditures by function, by municipality. As can be seen, the total expenditures in 1991 were approximately $1.4 billion. In the remainder of this section of the report, we have set out our findings with respect to each of the major functions. Detailed expenditure schedules for each function are contained in Appendix A. - - - .. A. General Government Expenditures .. One of the major categories of expenditure incurred by the region's municipalities is "General Government" expenditures. This includes the cost of elected representatives, administrative costs, and the cost of operating and maintaining the municipalities' city halls and administrative offices. General government expenditures amount to about $128.4 million, or 9.3% of the total expenditures of the region's municipalities. Each of the three components of general government is analyzed below: - - .. - 1. Elected Representatives. Relatively, this is not a significant cost in relation to total expenditures, representing less than 1 % of total regional expenditures. However, it is a high profile expenditure, and one that many assume would be dramatically reduced if one-tier government were established. We analyzed the salary costs of elected representatives and their staffs, and determined that, in ... - 11 - ... f f I I I f I I , f I I I I I f I I I N ONE-TIER STUDY REVENUE FUND EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION BY MUNICIPALITY" 1991 ACTUALS FROM FINANCIAL INFORMATION RETURN Function ($ OOO's) Cumberland Gloucester Goulboum Kanata Nepean Osgoode Ottawa Rideau Rockcliffe Vanier West Region Total Park Carleton General govemment 4,758 11 ,686 1,319 5,957 9,143 941 49,384 1,092 616 3,398 1,549 38,589 128,432 Protection to persons/property Fire 1,849 7,964 262 2,285 8,528 461 48,927 381 462 1,723 577 0 73,419 Police 0 11,624 6 2,762 13,546 7 65,835 0 323 3,037 0 2,255 99,395 Other 846 942 190 494 1,078 159 10,700 146 4 286 201 2,422 17,468 Total protection 2,695 20,530 458 5,541 23,152 627 125,462 527 789 5,046 778 4,677 190,282 Transportation and environmental services 5,460 15,327 2,841 6,723 16,237 2,779 88,062 2,432 992 3,781 3,449 416,398 564,481 Health services 0 73 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 35 8 18,738 18,859 Social and family services 172 0 77 152 406 29 2,010 49 0 0 52 341,205 344,152 Recreation and cultural services 2,747 13,251 1,291 5,228 17,562 912 57,752 667 71 1,550 739 657 102,427 Planning and development 1,667 1,716 288 767 937 542 22,407 225 41 632 364 8,319 37,905 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total expendibJres 17,499 62,583 6,274 24,368 67,437 5,830 345,082 4,992 2,509 14,442 6,939 828,583 1,386,538 " Figures shown in this table are total revenue fund expenditures. In addition to operating expenditures (as defined elsewhere in this report), they include net long-term debt charges and transfers to own funds, such as capital expenditures and reserve funds. ... ... ... .. ... fact, it is likely that the cost under one-tier government would be very similar to existing costs. Although the number of elected representatives would be reduced from the present number of 83 to about 30, we have assumed that the one-tier councillors would be full.time (as opposed to many which are presently part- time), and they would each require two full-time staffers. This is consistent with the practice in other municipalities of similar size, such as the City of Toronto. - ... - As depicted in Schedule I, the existing cost of elected officials is $4.12 million. Based on the above assumption that there would be 30 full-time elected representatives, with two full.time staff assistants, the cost under one-tier government would be about $3.75 million, a reduction of only $.36 million annually. Given that there are presently 32 regional councillors, and a regional chair, it is possible that there might be as many as that number of councillors under one.tier government. This would result in an annual cost almost identical to the presents costs. Thus, it appears reasonable that the cost of elected representatives' and their staff's salaries and benefits would not be materially reduced by one-tier government. It is also reasonable to assume that non-salary costs of elected officials would also not be reduced materially. - - ... ... - This seemingly anomalous conclusion results from the fact that most municipalities in the region presently pay their councillors very little, and the creation of one-tier government would result in "professionalization" of elected representatives, with consequent costs. This is one of many examples of how one-tier would create a "big government" approach to doing business, as opposed to the low cost approach take by smaller municipalities. - - - - 13 - - - - - ... - 2. Administration. This refers to activities associated with the Chief Administrative Officer's office, the Clerk's office, the Treasurer's office, human resource management, information system management, purchasing and general administration. In the region, the above functions are performed both at the upper and lower-tier, although the level of sophistication varies significantly across the region. We have determined that for administrative purposes, there are three classes of organization: - - - a) "large administration" organizations, namely the City of Ottawa and the Regional govemment, which tend to have relatively complex administrative structures, large computer systems, and where the administration is remote from operations, requiring more formal communication and record-keeping systems; - ... b) "medium-sized" organizations, such as Gloucester, Nepean, and perhaps Cumberland and Kanata, where the administration is relatively informal, but where there are distinct groups for functions such as human resource management and information systems; and .... c) "small-enterprise" organizations, consisting of all the rural townships, Rockcliffe Park and Vanier, where the administration is highly informal, very close to operations, and where there is significant cross-utilization of staff, with most staff performing several functions. ... - The significance of the above distinction is that the administration cost per capita tends to be higher for larger municipalities -- basically due to the greater degree of administrative sophistication, the greater specialization of administrative staff, and the loss of the economies of cross-utilization of staff. These impacts are illustrated in Schedule II, which shows that the smaller municipalities generally have lower per capita administration costs. Rockcliffe Park is an exception as a result of its extremely small population base. Generally, despite the anomaly of Rockcliffe Park, it is apparent that economies of scale do not occur. For example, Ottawa has the same total administrative staff as all the other lower-tier ... ... - - 14 - - - - .. - municipalities combined, although Ottawa's population represents only 46.3% of the region's total (see Schedule II). The reasons for this lack of economies are as described in a) to c) above. - - The higher administrative cost of the larger municipalities is accentuated by the higher salaries generally paid to administrative staff in the larger municipalities. This is illustrated in Schedule III. The average salaries, including benefits, of Ottawa's administrative staff are approximately $70,000, while for all other lower- tier municipalities combined, it is $42,400. For the Regional government, the average is approximately $65,000. - - - We have assumed that a one-tier govemment would operate much more like Ottawa than it would like the other lower-tier governments, and that, over a period of a few years, costs would gravitate to the level of Ottawa's costs. The "small enterprise" economies of the smaller and medium-sized municipalities would be lost, and salaries would tend to increase to Ottawa levels. Because of the size of the Ottawa bureaucracy, some of the administrative services such as finance and human resources require considerably more staff and financial resources to meet the demand. Ottawa is often looked to as the centre for information and direction, on many innovative programs, by municipalities throughout the Region. For example, all local municipalities make use of Ottawa's Training Centre. - ... ... .. ... - For the lower-tier administrative functions, we have assumed that the costs would ultimately rise to Ottawa levels on a per capita basis, resulting in an increased cost of about $15.6 million. Of this amount, about $9 million would result from salary increases. There would be little opportunity for economies of scale, as the volumes of administrative work would be the same as at present, ... - 15 - - - - - - - and may in fact increase as Ottawa's higher service levels were adopted. For example, Ottawa offers its residents more frequent tax payments than do other municipalities, which creates additional work. In addition, Ottawa offers a higher level of bilingual service, which we estimate would cost $.6 to $.8 million annually to offer across the rest of the region. - - The administrative functions performed by the Region are generally different to those performed by the lower.tier municipalities in that they relate to different types of activities. For example, administration in the Region is largely of transportation and social service programs not performed at the lower-tier. Therefore, the opportunities for significant elimination of duplication between the upper and lower tiers do not exist. - - - We have assumed that there would be some savings from a reduction in senior management staff, and from the use by the one-tier government of a common computer system rather than the many systems currently in use. Our best estimate is that there would be savings of 50 to 70 senior staff across the region, representing about $4 to $6 million, including benefits. - - - Overall, we would see administrative operating costs, including the cost of increased bilingual service, increasing by $10 to $12 million annually, an increase of 10% to 12%. This amount is the net of increases to bring service administration up to the level of Ottawa, reductions in senior staff, and the cost of increased bilingualism. - - - It is important to note that significant administrative cost savings probably could be achieved across the region, particularly in the larger entities, through the streamlining of administrative processes and the application of efficient - 16 - - ... .... ... ... ... administrative technology. Many organizations are achieving important improvements in this respect, often as much as 10% to 20% in annual operating cost reductions. However, any achievable improvements could be accomplished with or without one-tier government, and would require significant political will. It would not be appropriate to attribute to one.tier government any savings that could be achieved anyway. ... ... ... 3. Asset Management: This refers to costs associated with operating and maintaining the various municipalities' administrative facilities, mainly the city halls. Our assumption is that facilities of similar size would continue to be required under one-tier government because we do not see any reduction in staff, but rather some increase. The existing facilities are not ideally suited to the requirement under one.tier government because it is likely that a one-tier government would wish to reduce the number of locations from the present twelve to four or five, covering the centre, east, west and south. Also, the requirement for public meeting facilities under one-tier government would diminish, while other space requirements Would increase. Over time, we assume that the opportunity would be taken to dispose of existing facilities and acquire facilities more in line with the needs of a one.tier structure. The timing and prices of these disposals and acquisitions cannot be predicted with any reliability at this time. Suffice to say that the ultimate facilities would be no smaller in total than existing facilities, and that they may cost more to own, because they would tend to be located more centrally than the rural municipalities' facilities are located at present. In addition, there would be implementation costs associated with selling existing assets and moving to new facilities. Even in the short-term, there would probably be some implementation costs as people are moved around to new functions in a redesigned administrative structure, but these would not be significant. - ... ... - ... ... ... ... ... 17 ... ... ... ... - ... In summary, the operating and maintenance costs of facilities would not tend to change in the short term, and may increase over the longer term. There would also be one-time costs of moving staff and records at various times to create the preferred administrative arrangements over time. - - B. Fire Services ... ... In Ottawa.Carleton, the lower.tier municipalities have responsibility for fire services, including both fire fighting and prevention activities. The services are provided through networks of local fire stations, which ensure a rapid response to fire and other emergencies. Although the fire departments are separate, long standing mutual aid agreements ensure that municipalities combine their efforts to fight large fires which might exceed the capabilities of any of them individually. Response times are somewhat longer in areas which are less densely populated, but all areas of the region appear to receive high standards of fire services. - - ... ... Comparisons with other regions do not provide any clear indication that cost savings could be realized through regionalization of fire services. In other Ontario regional municipalities, the idea that services should be provided by the lower-tier municipalities prevails. We also examined the large Western Canadian cities where one city government serves all or most of the metropolitan area - Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg. At $98 per capita in 1990, Ottawa-Carleton's operating expenditures for fire services compare favourably with Calgary ($101) and Edmonton ($100), but are higher than Winnipeg ($89). ... - - ... The crucial point is that most of the cost of operating a fire department are incurred at the fire station level. There appear to be a few areas where fire stations located ... 18 ... - ... - ... - ... near municipal borders could be used to serve territory in a neighbouring municipality. Over the long term, some reduction in the number of fire stations would be possible, but the effect on costs would not be dramatic. ... In our opinion, annual operating expenditures for fire services would be likely to rise between $5 and $25 million under a single-tier system. This conclusion is derived from the significant differences in fire service costs which currently exist among the municipalities within Ottawa.Carleton, looked at in terms of operating expenditures per capita (see Schedule IV). At present, costs are lowest in the municipalities with volunteer fire departments. Costs in Goulbourn, Osgoode, Rideau and West Carleton, which rely entirely on volunteers, are in the order of $25 per capita annually. By contrast, suburban municipalities which rely exclusively on full-time firefighters (Gloucester and Nepean), have costs in the order of $75 per capita. Other suburban municipalities which have a mix of full-time and volunteer firefighters (Cumberland and Kanata), have costs between the Nepean/Gloucester level and those of rural municipalities. - ... - .. ... ... The question is whether a single-tier fire department could continue to use volunteers. We believe this is unlikely, except during a transitional period, because: ... ... 1. Unions representing firefighters have tended to oppose mixed forces on the grounds that volunteers are not as highly trained. Most collective agreements rule out the use of volunteers. - 2. The incentive to volunteer would be reduced under a regional system, since there would be little connection between the costs for fire services in the local area and the level of taxes. ... - 19 - - ... - ... - 3. Ratepayers in a single-tier municipality would expect similar levels of service, regardless of location within the municipality. While the level of service provided by volunteers is not necessarily lower, it could be perceived as such. - - We have not conducted a detailed examination of the number of staff required if all of Ottawa-Carleton were to be served by full-time firefighters. As a first approximation, however, we calculated what it would cost if the per capita cost in the municipalities which now rely wholly or in part on volunteers rose to the Gloucester/Nepean average. The cost of eliminating volunteers would be in the order of $5 million annually. Changes in equipment or in the number and location of fire stations might also be required. These capital costs are difficult to estimate, but could be very substantial. - ... ... - The difference in fire service costs between the City of Ottawa (which also provides services to Vanier and Rockcliffe Park) and the suburban municipalities raises more complex issues. Costs in Ottawa are in the order of $135 per capita, compared to $75 in Gloucester and Nepean. A number of reasons can be advanced, including the need to provide protection for large office and commercial buildings and for older residential areas. These cost factors are unique to Ottawa, and would not change under single-tier government. On the other hand, a report by the consulting firm of Cresap suggests that the number of aerials and the location of some stations adds significantly to the Ottawa cost. The City of Ottawa is currently examining the feasibility of changes to these standards. Pending a resolution of these issues, the worst case scenario would be for fire service costs across the region to rise to the current City of Ottawa level. If so, the additional cost would be $25 million annually. There would also be significant capital costs, particularly for additional equipment. ... ... ... .. .. - - 20 - ... - ... - - C. Police Services ... At present, four separate forces provide local policing in Ottawa-Carleton. The City of Ottawa police force also provides services to Vanier under an agreement with that city. Gloucester and Nepean have their own forces. All of the other municipalities receive services from the Ontario Provincial Police. Kanata and Rockcliffe Park pay for the services they receive, and Cumberland is likely to begin doing so. The other municipalities (Goulboum, Osgoode, Rideau and West Carleton) receive these services without charge at the present time. - ... ... ... The system in Ottawa-Carleton contrasts with that in other Ontario regional municipalities, where police services are generally provided by the regional municipality. Comparisons can also be made with the large Western Canadian cities where one city govemment serves all or most of the metropolitan area - Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg. ... ... - Annual operating expenditures per capita for police services are in the order of $138 in Ottawa-Carleton (see Schedule V). Costs vary widely among the Ontario regional municipalities (see Schedule VI). Metropolitan Toronto is the highest, with per capita costs for policing about 58% higher than in Ottawa-Carleton. York Region is the lowest, about 22% lower than Ottawa-Carleton. Of the Western Cities, Calgary and Edmonton are about 7% higher than Ottawa-Carleton, and Winnipeg is about 10% lower (see Schedule VII). To summarize, policing costs in Ottawa- Carleton are in the same general range as for municipalities which have single-tier policing. ... - ... .. .. 21 - ... - ... ... - ... There are two specific factors which could cause an increase of $4 to $7 million annually in the cost to local taxpayers for policing if there were single-tier government in Ottawa-Carleton. - First, based on prevailing practices in other Ontario regional municipalities, it is likely that a regional police force would be required to serve the whole region. Thi.s would include those areas now served without charge by the OPP. Based on the per capita costs in Kanata (which the OPP serves under contract), the cost of OPP services in Goulbourn, Osgoode, Rideau and West Carleton is estimated at $4 million annually.' It is unlikely that a regional force could serve these areas at lower cost than the OPP, and this cost would now be borne by Ottawa-Carleton taxpayers. ... - ... - Second, the difference in police service costs between the City of Ottawa (which also provides services to Vanier) and the suburban municipalities raises more complex issues. Per capita costs for policing in Ottawa are $180, compared to an average of $114 in Gloucester and Nepean (which have their own forces) and $74 for Kanata (served by the OPP under contract). ... ... - These cost differences are due in large part to differences in workload. This can be shown by relating operating expenditures not to population but to the number of calls for service. The cost per call in Ottawa is $410, only 9% more than the average of $375 for Gloucester and Nepean. Our terms of reference did not extend to a detailed examination of the reasons for this difference. However, it is a well accepted fact among all municipalities that Ottawa deals with many issues simply not found in the suburban or rural municipalities. These include market area, the - - - 1 It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that Cumberland will begin to pay for OPP services on a phased-in basis whether or not one-tier government is adopted. - 22 - - .. ... - - court house, large densely populated areas, and the protocol issues related to visiting dignities and the parliamentary and diplomatic precinct. ... - Without a more detailed examination of the reasons for these cost differences, it is difficult to determine precisely how costs would change if the four existing police forces were combined. One possible scenario would be an increase of 9% or $3 million annually in police service costs outside OttawalVanier, including those areas now served by the OPP. - - D. Transportation and Environmental Services - .. Transportation and environmental services combined represent 20% of the operating expenditures of the lower-tier municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton and 40% of the RMOC's own operating expenditures. In addition, they account for a high proportion of capital costs at both levels of government. ... ... The responsibilities of the regional municipality and the lower-tier are clearly differentiated. RMOC is responsible for regional roads (the main or arterial roads in all municipalities), transit, disposal of solid waste, sewage treatment, trunk sewers, and water treatment and distribution. The lower-tier municipalities are responsible for local roads, local sanitary and storm sewers, collection of solid waste (including most recycling programs), parking and street lighting. .. .. .. The division of responsibilities is complex and may appear confusing. For example, RMOC pays for maintenance and snow clearing on regional roads within the City of Ottawa, but the City carries it out. In other municipalities, the Region does the work itself. Lower-tier municipalities are responsible for the operation of street lighting on - - 23 .. ... .. .. .. - regional roads. In some cases, lower-tier snow clearing equipment may pass along regional roads in order to get from one local road to another. .. - Local officials are convinced that there is adequate coordination of efforts by the two tiers and that the system works well in practice. Most believe that some changes would be logical, such as the transfer of responsibility for solid waste collection (particularty recycling) to the regional level. However, they do not believe that such changes would result in major savings. - ... Operating expenditures on transportation and environmental services, particularty roads and sewers, depend largely on the amount, condition and use of the infrastructure in place. For reasons of history and geography, there are wide variations. - .. - For example, older neighbourhoods in the City of Ottawa were built before cars were commonplace. There are sidewalks in most areas, and on-street parking is common. Sidewalks have to be plowed, and snow has to be hauled away periodically to keep the streets usable. Sanitary and storm sewers are often not separated, and may need to be replaced because of their age. ... - In rural areas, the infrastructure is much more rudimentary. Roads are often gravel. Sewers, sidewalks and street lighting are the exception. However, per capita costs for transportation and environmental services are relatively high because the population density is much lower. - - - Suburban areas tend to have the lowest per capita costs for transportation and environmental services. The infrastructure is newer, and designed for the automobile age. - 24 ... ... - - - - It is very difficult to predict how a single-tier municipality would manage such a diverse infrastructure. A single-tier council might face pressure from rural areas for paved roads, or from suburban areas for more sidewalks. Environmentally- conscious citizens or the provincial government might demand that the present long-term program of replacing and separating sewers in older areas be accelerated. Access to a broader base of taxes and sewer surcharges might make a single-tier council less resistant to such pressures for capital expenditures. In our opinion, single-tier govemment could result in an increase of up to 10% or $6 million in annual capital expenditures on transportation and environmental services which are now a lower-tier responsibility. - - - - ... One of the most controversial areas of transportation services is winter control or snow clearing. There is a perception that residential streets in the City of Ottawa are not cleared as soon or as thoroughly as in the suburban municipalities. We have found it difficult to quantify the difference in standards, or the cost impact if the City of Ottawa were to move to suburban standards of snow clearing. One factor which is acknowledged is that Ottawa, as a matter of policy, uses sand rather than salt on residential streets. The City of Ottawa spent $9.6 million on winter control in 1991, after subtracting payments from the regional municipality for clearing of regional roads. It is difficult to be precise, but raising winter control standards for residential streets in Ottawa to the level of suburban municipalities might add up to $1 million to annual operating costs. -- - ... - ... ... .. - 25 - ... ... - - - E. Recreation and Cultural Services - - Expenditures: Recreational and cultural services include: park maintenance; the operation of arenas, pools, community centres and other recreation facilities; the operation of libraries; and grants to cultural organizations. There is often a strong demand for these services. However, the level of service provided is more discretionary than, for example, snow clearing or police services. - - Larger municipalities with stronger tax bases are likely to provide higher levels of service. Ottawa's operating expenditures on recreation and cultural services (including libraries) are the highest at $171 per capita. Nepean follows at $153, Kanata at $133 and Gloucester at $117 (see Schedule VIII). - - Smaller municipalities may rely more on volunteers or part-time staff, have less elaborate facilities or programs, or have shorter hours of operation. Expenditures in the other seven municipalities are significantly lower, averaging $62 per capita. - - Under a single-tier municipality, expenditures on recreation and cultural services would be likely to converge upward toward the level which now exists in the larger municipalities. The logic supporting this view is as follows: - ... 1. Residents in all areas of the single-tier municipality would expect to receive similar levels of service. - 2. Residents of the areas which already have high levels of recreational and cultural services would be reluctant to accept lower levels of service. Moreover, there are some practical constraints to reducing levels of service where facilities, such as arenas or pools, are already in place. - - 26 - - - - - - - 3. Because the connection between the level of service provided in a particular area and the property taxes paid by its residents would be less direct, there would be less incentive for residents to act as volunteers, or to accept lower levels of service for financial reasons. - - One possible scenario, at the upper end of the range of possibilities, is that per capita operating expenditures for recreation and cultural services in all other municipalities would converge upward to the level which now exists in Ottawa. This would imply an increase of $21 million dollars annually. - - One factor which would tend to mitigate the increase is that the better-financed municipalities may already be providing services to residents of other municipalities. Landsdowne Park, the Nepean Sportsplex, the Kanata and Gloucester wave pools, the Centrepointe Theatre, Arts Court, the reference services of the Ottawa Public Library main branch, and cultural groups which receive grants from the larger municipalities already playa regional role to some degree. It is not clear that a single-tier municipality would feel obliged to replicate these facilities and services in other locations. An alternative scenario is that operating expenditures in the smaller municipalities would tend to converge to the average level of spending in Gloucester, Kanata and Nepean, but not to the Ottawa level. On that basis, the increase in annual operating expenditure would be $8 million per year. - - - - .. In principle, it should be possible to use the Development Charges Reports of the various municipalities to calculate requirements for additional capital expenditures to bring facilities up to a common standard. In practice, the pattern which emerges is less clear than for operating expenditures. - - - 27 - - - - - - The one service area where capital requirements can be defined with some clarity is libraries. We estimate that additional capital expenditures of $2-3 million per year over a five-year period would be necessary to bring library facilities and collections up to the standards prevailing in the larger municipalities. Expenditures would have to continue at a higher level even after this period in order to keep the new, larger collections current. - - - - Taking into account both operating expenditures for the full range of recreation and cultural services and capital expenditures for libraries, we estimate that annual expenditures for recreation and cultural services could increase by $10 to 24 million if there were a single-tier municipality. It is likely that further capital costs would be incurred for upgrading of recreational facilities. - - User Fees: User fees are a significant factor in the financing of recreational services. Some municipalities have taken the view that the benefit of these services goes to identifiable individuals, who should bear a significant proportion of the operating costs. Others, such as Ottawa and Vanier, have been concerned that charging could make facilities less accessible to low income residents. They have tended to set lower rates, or to provide facilities free of charge. In 1991, user fees were equal to 24% of operating expenditures on parks and recreation in Ottawa, 19% in Vanier and zero in Rockcliffe Park. For the other eight lower-tier municipalities, user fees averaged 46% of operating expenditures. - - - - - Whether user fee revenues would increase or decrease in a single-tier municipality depends on the policy established by the new council. We believe that total revenues from user fees are unlikely to decline and may increase by up to $5 million annually because: - - 28 - - ... ... - - · fiscal pressures are already leading Ottawa to move toward higher rates; and ... · expenditures on recreation are likely to increase. This may lead a new council to seek additional revenues to cover at least some of the additional expenditures. - F. Planning and Economic Development - - The Region is responsible for region-wide planning, while local municipalities are responsible for local planning and zoning. Generally, the approvals at the Regional level are different than those required at the lower-tier level. The Region generally acts on behalf of the Province in that it has been delegated authority by the Province to grant approvals. Since there is no significant duplication between the planning activities conducted at the UPPlll' and lower tiers, there would not be savings from the creation of one-tier. There might be some slight reduction in work load resulting from the fact that there would not be any required interface between the two tiers, although this would only be the case if the Province continued to delegate its authority to the one-tier govemment. - - ... - - By far a bigger issue is that there is a significant difference in the present planning processes of the various lower-tier municipalities, primarily between Ottawa and the other municipalities. Ottawa has a far greater degree of consultation with the community on planning matters, which increases both the time and cost of the planning process. Ottawa must also plan for the ongoing development of the downtown core which serves the entire region and must do so in consultation with a myriad of federal agencies. This extensive degree of intergovernmental consultation causes some significant costs not found in other municipalities. As can be seen in Schedule IX, Ottawa's per capita cost of planning is higher than that of other municipalities. - ... - - 29 - - - - - - ... We have assumed that the planning processes adopted by a one-tier government would be more consultative than that employed by most of the lower-tier municipalities. However, we do not believe that the processes would be as rigorous as those employed by Ottawa. Rather, we see the processes being closer to Ottawa's than at present. We have assumed that the per capita costs would be an average of Ottawa's and those of Gloucester, representing a more suburban approach to planning. It is not likely that a one-tier government would adopt an approach closer to the municipalities in the region with less complex planning processes. This would result in a cost increase of about $1.6 million. This would be partially offset by some reduction in cost through combination of municipal staffs, amounting to about $.4 million. Thus the net cost increase would be about $1.2 million, but this increase could be anywhere from $.9 million to 1.5 million. - - - - - Economic development costs are not incurred to any significant extent except by Ottawa and the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation (OCEDCO). The functions performed by these two groups vary quite significantly, OCEDCO concentrates on international marketing of the region, while Ottawa concentrates on local economic development initiatives. Included in the City's economic development budget is the management of public markets such as the Byward Market. - .. - ... We have assumed that the present economic development activities would not be affected by the creation of one-tier government, and that the cost would accordingly not be affected. .. - - 30 - - - - - - G. Implementation Cost - Over and above the changes in operating costs associated with one-tier government, there would be significant costs associated with implementation of one-tier. We have estimated that these would consist of at least the following, based on the experience of Winnipeg, which implemented unitary municipal government in the early 1970s. These costs are very rough estimates but are intended to provide an indication of the order of magnitude of the one-time costs that would be incurred. In all probability, they are conservative, as there would probably be many other costs associated with the disruption of moving to one-tier government. Certainly, officials in Winnipeg report that there were several years of disruption. ... - - ... .... · Relocating staff: There would almost certainly be significant relocation of staff to achieve a rational service delivery and administrative approach across the region. In all likelihood, as many as 500-1000 of the 11,000 employees would be affected. This would clearly entail some cost, although this cannot be estimated at this time. .. - - · Disposing of facilities: The present facilities would not match the one-tier government's needs in that service delivery locations would be consolidated for certain services. The cost of disposing of buildings and acquiring new buildings cannot be estimated at this time, but it would be significant. - - · Implementing common computer systems and records: The cost of implementing common hardware and software, of creating and loading common data, of building necessary communication systems, and of creating one record keeping system, would be $10 million to $20 million. - - 31 - - ... ... - - - · Severance: Although we have concluded overall that staff would ultimately increase under one-tier government, there would probably be some redundancies due to changes in the required mix of staff. This will result in severance costs, although this cannot be quantified at this time. - - · Common identity: There would be a cost of implementing a common logo as identification for all regional facilities and equipment, uniforms, letterhead, etc. ... Overall, the above costs of implementation are conservatively estimated to amount to anywhere from $12 to $29 million, allowing for a conservative range of costs for those items that cannot be quantified at this time. This is a wide range, but is indicative of the fact that there would be a significant cost. - - H. Summary .. ... The estimated cost changes resulting from one-tier government are summarized on the following page. As can be seen, the increase in annual expenditures is estimated at $25 million to $77 million. The upper end of this range assumes that costs would rise substantially to Ottawa levels, particularly in the areas of fire, police, recreation and culture. The lower end of the range assumes that aggressive management action would be taken to prevent service levels and costs from automatically rising to Ottawa levels. In addition, we conservatively estimate the one-time cost of implementing one-tier government as being anywhere from $12 million to $29 million. - - - - - 32 - - - - - - - ONE-TIER STUDY SUMMARY OF COST CHANGES Lower End Upper End of Range (2) of Range (1) Annual ExpencibJres ($ Millions) General Govemment 10 12 Fire 5 25 Police 4 7 Transportation and Environment 0 7 Recreation and Culture 5 24 Planning and Development 0.9 1.5 Total 24.9 77.5 One- Time Implementation Costs (3) 12 29 - ... - ... - .. .. Notes: - 1. The upper end of the range of cost increases generally assumes that costs would rise to Ottawa levels. - - 2. The lower end of the range is based on the assumption that there would be aggressive management to prevent service levels from rising to Ottawa's levels. 3. The cost range for implementation costs is mostly due to the uncertainty regarding the amount of these costs. - - 33 - ... ... - ... - V. Debt, Reserves and Payments in Lieu of Taxes - - Schedule X shows the debt and reserves of each of the lower-tier municipalities and the Region, in absolute and per capita terms. Debt only includes those amounts that affect the mill rate. This exhibit illustrates that the various municipalities have significantly different approaches to financial management. Some municipalities, notably Ottawa and Vanier, have tended to fund major capital expenditures through debt, while other municipalities, such as Nepean, have tended to use a "pay as you go" approach to financial management, whereby reserves are built up for major planned capital expenditures. In effect, this latter approach is analogous to an individual saving for major purchases rather than borrowing from the bank. - - - - Neither of the above approaches is necessarily preferable. It is quite reasonable to finance certain expenditures through debt. However, if one-tier government were created, the debt and reserves may be pooled, and the taxpayers in municipalities which have used a "pay as you go" approach, and which would presumably have paid higher taxes in the past, would share in the debt of those that have used debt financing, and which have pushed taxes into the future. .. - - - It is important to note that it is not necessarily the case that debt and reserves would be pooled in a one-tier government scenario. It is possible that allowance could be made whereby taxpayers in existing municipalities would continue to pay for the debt (net of reserves) of the municipality in which they presently reside. The impact of the redistribution of taxes on taxpayers in each municipality, including the impact of debt and reserves, is explored in greater detail in the next section of the report. ... - - 34 - - - - ... ... - Schedule XI shows the payments in lieu of taxes (PILs) of each municipality, mostly received from the federal government. This is presented because federal government PILs are so important a factor in the finances of some of the municipalities, in that, while they approximate the taxes that would be paid by a non-government organization, no portion has to be allocated for school purposes. In the case of Ottawa, which has by far the greatest portion of PILs, this amounts to a very large source of financing. As explained in the next section of this report, these PILs would have an important influence on the relative impact of one-tier government on the taxpayers in the existing municipalities across the region. - ... - - - - - - - - - - 35 - - ... - - ... VI. Impact on Taxpayers - ... The purpose of this section of the report is to demonstrate the impact of one-tier government on the taxpayers in the region. The intent is to show how the average taxpayer in the region as a whole would be affected, and how average taxpayers in each existing municipality would be affected. The former impact is a function of changes in the overall net cost of municipal government in the region; the latter impact is a function both of overall cost changes, as well as of the way in which the overall net costs would be distributed amongst the taxpayers of existing municipalities. Each of the two impacts is described below separately. - ... ... ... It is important to note that the analysis in this section of the report deals only with taxes paid for lower-tier and upper-tier purposes, and excludes school taxes. Thus the impacts are in relation to only a portion of the taxes actually paid by taxpayers, typically about half of the average taxpayer's total municipal taxes. School taxes have been ignored because this study was not intended to address the structure and cost of school boards in Ottawa-Carleton. - ... .. The analysis of impact on taxpayers does not separately address the impact on residential/farm and commerciallindustrial taxpayers because there is no basis to assess a differential impact on these classes of taxpayer. Thus the analysis treats the impact on all classes of taxpayers as being similar. - - The analysis also disregards any possible change in the grants provided by the provincial government. including Wintario grants. The provincial government is currently reviewing its financial relationship with municipalities. - - 36 ... - ... - .. ... A. Overall Cost Impact - As indicated previously in this report, it is our view that net costs under one-tier government would increase by $25 to $77 million annually. Assuming that the increased cost would have to be funded entirely by the residents of Ottawa- Carleton, and assuming that the funding were entirely through taxes, this would increase the average tax bill by between 5.5% and 16.5% annually. Despite the fact that costs are expected to increase by only 2% to 5%, this is on gross costs. After deducting non-tax revenues such as user fees and grants, the impact of the cost increases on the amount that must be funded through taxes is far greater. - - ... .. B. Impact on Taxpayers in Various Municipalities .. .. This deals with the fact that the municipalities which presently tax their residents separately would no longer exist under one-tier government. Rather, there would be one large municipality which would tax all residents in the region. This would mean that a taxpayer In, say, Nepean who presently pays Nepean taxes and Regional taxes, would only pay taxes representing a share in the overall region's tax requirement. This taxpayer would, in effect, pay a share of the costs of what is presently Ottawa, Gloucester, Goulbourn Township, etc. The question is: would this Nepean taxpayer be better or worse off through having to pay a share of a bigger pot rather than just pay Nepean taxes and Regional taxes? ... ... ... ... This impact is far more complicated than that described in A. above, because the way in which taxes are shared amongst municipalities is complex, and the way in which they would be shared under a one-tier scenario is unknown. The analysis below is not intended to address every complexity of the tax sharing arrangements .. - 37 - - - ... - - - in the region, because no purpose would be served by such an exhaustive analysis. However, some indication of the impact between taxpayers in various municipalities is necessary, because it is one of the key aspects of creation of one-tier government. - - As noted above, at present, each taxpayer pays taxes for services provided by the local municipality, and taxes for services provided by the Regional government. The sharing of Regional taxes amongst the 11 lower-tier municipalities is based on a complex set of formulas which it is not appropriate to describe here. In performing our analysis, we combined the costs and revenues of all municipalities, including the Region, and kept all other variables as constant as possible, namely the various formulas referred to above. - - ... The results of the calculations, depicted in Schedule XII, show that there is a widely varying impact on the taxpayers within various municipalities. The exhibit shows the percentage by which each municipality's taxes would change, based on three alternative assumptions on the increase in cost resulting from one-tier government, namely a $25 million increase, a $50 million increase and a $75 million2 increase. The municipalities whose taxpayers would be worst affected would be Rockcliffe Park, Ottawa, Rideau, Goulbourn, Osgoode, West Carleton. The following are the primary variables influencing the tax impact: - - - - · Ottawa taxpayers would be heavily affected because Ottawa would give up its large payments in lieu of taxes (PILs), which more than make up for Ottawa's debt servicing costs and generally higher operating costs. All other municipalities, except Rockcliffe Park, gain from Ottawa's contribution of PILs. Rockcliffe Park would also give up significant PILs. - - 2 The tax scenarios were prepared based on round number estimates, rather than the more precise figures of $24.9 to $77.5 million used elsewhere in this report. - 38 - - ... - - - · The various municipalities stand to either pay more or less depending on their present relative cost structures. Those who have a higher than average costs would gain because they would share in the lower costs of other municipalities, and vice versa. Generally, the smaller municipalities would bear a larger share of taxes under one-tier government because their relative costs are lower than average at present. - - - In summary, therefore, larger municipalities would tend to pay less, and smaller municipalities would tend to pay more under one-tier government. The exception is Ottawa, which would pay more because it would contribute its PILs to the "central pot". - - C. Impact of Infrastructure Deficiencies - It is important to note that, in the analysis under A. and B., above, the possible impact of any "infrastructure deficiencies" has not been explicitly taken into account. "Infrastructure deficiency" in this context refers to the extent to which the physical assets of a municipality have not been adequately maintained over the years, resulting in excessive future rehabilitation costs. In other words, it implies that future taxpayers would pay for the inadequate past expenditures. To the extent that any of the existing lower-tier municipalities has an infrastructure deficiency, under one-tier govemment, the other municipalities' residents may have to share in the higher future costs and taxes. - ... ... ... ... A report was prepared by the City of Ottawa several years ago estimating the City's infrastructure deficiency at that time to be approximately $700 million. We understand that this is an estimate and not based on detailed asset-by-asset analysis. In addition, the City of Ottawa has increased its capital expenditures significantly in recent years and believes that its current level of expenditures would - ... 39 - - - - - - address any deficiency. If so, then the impact would already be captured in the analysis described under A. and B. above. - - It is not clear how an infrastructure deficiency of one municipality would be funded. It may be funded out of a one-tier municipality's combined taxes. However, it could be funded through special charges levied against that municipality's residents. Finally, although an estimate of Ottawa's infrastructure deficiency exists, however approximate, no such estimate exists for other municipalities in the region. Although no other municipality is likely to have a deficiency of the order of magnitude of Ottawa's estimated deficiency of several years ago, the other older urban municipalities could also have a deficiency. - ... ... - In summary, the issue of infrastructure deficiencies has not been explicitly addressed in this report because such deficiencies mayor may not already have been taken into consideration in the expenditures of each municipality, and because it is not clear how any deficiencies would be funded. The only thing that can be said is that the most likely deficiency of any size would be Ottawa's, and if such deficiency did exist, and were to be funded out of general taxes of a one-tier government, it could dramatically change the impact described in B. above, and could result in the taxpayers of other municipalities sharing in Ottawa's infrastructure costs, perhaps offsetting, or even more than offsetting, Ottawa's PIL contribution. - ... ... .. ... - - 40 - .. - - - - - - - ... ... - Appendix A - Detailed Expenditure Schedules ... ... ... - - - - - I f f I r I I I I , I f I I I I I I I Schedule I ONE-TIER STUDY ELECTED OFFICIALS 1992 - DATA SUPPLIED BY MUNICIPALITIES Cumberland Gloucester Goulboum Kanata Napean Osgoode Ottawa Rideau Rockcliffe Park Vanier Number of elected officials Mayor 7 9 6 7 7 5 16 7 5 7 West Carleton 7 Employment status full-time full-time full-time full-time full-time full-time full-time part-time volunteer full-time part-time Total remuneration for mayor 58,463 55,703 31,105 52,900 63,118 38,600 62,887 22,000 0 43,083 24,000 Councillors Number 6 8 5 6 6 4 15 6 4 6 6 part-time part-time (1) part-time part-time part-time part-time full-time part-time volunteer part-time part-time 22,922 21,891 15,553 19,000 25,707 16,000 38,215 18,500 0 20,166 12,000 137,530 175,124 77,765 114,000 154,244 64,000 573,232 111,000 0 120,996 72,000 195,993 230,827 108,870 166,900 217,362 102,600 636,119 133,000 0 164,079 96,000 Employment status Total remuneration per councillor (5) Total remuneration for all councillors Total remuneration for elected officials Assistants to elected officials Number 2.5 8 8 28 (3) (3) (3) (3) Employment status full-time (2) full-time part-time full-time part-time (4) full-time full&part Total salary for assistants 85,616 270,000 15,635 39,052 214,227 31,600 588,650 o o o o T~l'ijm4h.J9t"~1~~ffjpiE@.fti:~~. ...>~1;~ .~Q<),~~:VA~f;~ .....~~~~g..~Mi.~\'~~ J~/l~4~+9PP Total municipalities Total remuneration for regional councillors and chair Total cost of elected offICials ............1.a4,07'~ .. . .........-..... ..-00.0.. :-........_~.-_,....--,:, 3,296,529 824,081 4,120,610 Notes: (1) 2 of councillors are full-time serving on regional council (2) one person full-lime for six month contract (3) use services of full-time municipal office staff (4) 2 of 8 staff are full-time (5) remuneration for committee chairperson factored in f f I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I Schedule If ONE-TIER STUDY GENERAL GOVERNMENT OPERATING EXPENDITURES 1991 ACTUALS FROM FINANCIAL INFORMATION RETURN Total Rockcliffe West Lower Cumberland Gloucester Goulboum Kanata- Nepean Osgoode Ottawa Rideau Pa~ Vanier Carleton Tier Region Total Population 40,697 101,677 16,151 37,344 107,627 13,976 313,987 11,778 2,113 18,150 14,647 678,147 678,147 678,147 Operating expenditures ($ OOO's) 2,079 9,122 1,033 4,300 7,356 887 37,708 845 307 1,911 952 66,500 23,469 89,969 Per capita operating expend. ($) 51.09 89.72 63.96 115.15 68.35 63.48 120.09 71.71 145.29 105.26 64.98 98.06 34.61 132.67 " Population number according to enumeration is 2,295; the census number of 2,113 is currently under review. "" Operating expenditures for Kanata are higher because certain costs, such as rent for the City Hall and management information systems, are recorded centrally rather than allocated to departments. Schedule III ONE-TIER STUDY GENERAL GOVERNMENT STAFFING" 1991 ACTUALS FROM FINANCIAL INFORMATION RETURN Total Rockcliffe West Lower Cumberland Gloucester Goulboum Kanata Nepean Osgoode Ottawa Rideau Park Vanier Carleton Tier Region Total Salaries and benefits ($ OOO's) 1,292 4,238 616 1,985 4,336 446 24,432 598 232 943 571 39,689 20,570 60,259 Number of Staff 26 103 17 40 111 13 350 14 6 34 12 726 316 1,042 Average salaries and benefits ($) 49,692 41 , 146 36,235 49,625 39,063 34,308 69,806 42,714 38,667 44,900 47,583 54,668 65,095 57,830 . Figures for Number of staff are from the Financial Information Retums of the Municipalities. They are the number of continuous full-time employees as at December 31. 1991 reported under the headings of Administration and Non-line Departmental Support Staff (Schedule 12). Salaries and benefits include those paid to part-time staff, but most general government staff are believed to be full-time. I f I I I I r r , I I I I I I I I I I Schedule IV ONE-TIER STUDY FIRE SERVICES OPERATING EXPENDITURES 1991 ACTUALS FROM FINANCIAL INFORMATION RETURN Fire Services Cumberland Gloucester Goulboum Kanata Nepean 0890009 Ottawa Rideau Rockcliffe Vanier West Total Park Carleton Population 40,697 101,677 16,151 37,344 107,627 13,976 313,987 11,778 2,113 18,150 14,647 Operating Expenditures ($ OOO's) 1,715 7,854 236 2,263 8,097 372 42,768 284 462 1,714 364 Cost ($) per capita 42.15 77.24 14.61 60.61 75.24 26.65 136.21 24.15 218.44 94.41 24.86 Difference ($) from Nep/Glouc avg. of $ 76.24 34.09 (1.00) 61.63 15.63 1.00 49.59 n/a 52.09 (142.20) (18.17) 51.38 Total addtional expendibJre required to reach NeplGlouc average ($ OOQ's) 1,387 (102) 995 584 108 693 nla 614 nla nla 753 5,032 Difference from Ottawa ($) 94.06 58.97 121.60 75.60 60.97 109.56 nla 112.06 n/a n/a 111.35 Total additional expenditure required to reach Ottawa level ($ OOO's) 3,828 5,995 1,964 2,823 6,562 1,531 nla 1,320 nla nla 1,631 25,655 r f I I , I r I I f I I f I I f I I I Schedule V ONE-TIER STUDY POLICE SERVICES OPERATING EXPENDITURES 1991 ACTUALS FROM FINANCIAL INFORMATION RETURN Police Services Cumbertand Gloucester Goulboum Kanata Nepean Osgoode Ottawa Rideau Rockcliffe Vanier West Total Park Carleton Population 40,697 101,677 16,151 37,344 107,627 13,976 313,987 11,778 2,113 18,150 14,647 678,147 Operating expenditures ($ OOO's) 0 11,365 3 2,762 12,579 6 56,571 0 323 3,038 0 86,647 Cost per capita ($) 0.00 111.78 0.18 73.95 116.87 0.46 180.17 0.00 153.01 167.37 0.00 OPP served municipalities at Kanata per capita expenditure of $73.95 ($ OOO's) 3,009 1,194 1,033 871 1,083 Current operating expenditures for OPP served 0 3 6 0 0 municipalities ($ OOO's) Add'l operating expendibJre required if police service paid for by municipalities ($ OOO's) 3,009 1,191 1,027 871 1,083 7,182 Total operating expenditure if all municipalities paid for police service ($ OOO's) 93,829 Regional per capita operating expenditure average ($) 138.36 f r f I I I I I I f I I I Schedule VI ONE-TIER STUDY REVENUE FUND EXPENDITURES POLICE SERVICES 1990 MARS DATABASE Ontario Regions with Regional Policing Expenditure Expenditure on Police per Capita ($ OOO's)* ($) Metropolitan Toronto 500,701 235 Peel 94,770 156 Ottawa-Carleton 92,669 149 Niagara 52,707 144 Hamilton - Wentworth 57,896 135 Sudbury 19,101 126 Durham 43,255 124 Waterloo 41,275 121 Halton 33,591 119 York 47,935 117 Average 143 " Expenditure figures differ from those presented in previous tables because these include debt charges and transfers to own funds (primarily capital). This represents approximately a 7% difference above that of the other chart calculations. r I I I I I f I I I I I I I I ( r I I I I Schedule VII ONE-TIER STUDY POLICE SERVICES OPERATING EXPENDITURES 1991 Ottawa-Carleton" Calgary Edmonton Winnipeg Average Population 678,147 719,000 605,538 616,990 654,919 Operating Expenditures $ (OOO's) 93,829 107,450 88,966 74,329 91,144 Cost ($) per capita 138.36 149.44 146.92 120.47 138.80 Difference from average ($) (0.44) 10.64 8.12 (18.33) " Assumption made that OPP serviced municipalities of Cumberland, Goulboum, Osgoode, Rideau and West Carleton would have per capita costs similar to Kanata ($73.4) I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I r I I Schedule VIII ONE-TIER STUDY RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES OPERATING EXPENDITURES 1991 ACTUALS FROM FINANCIAL INFORMATION RETURN Recreation and culbJral seMces GUm l:Iloucester l:IOUlDOUm Mnata Nepean osgooae ottawa Rideau RocKclme Vanier West Average ParX Carleton Big Three Population .40,697 lUl,o{f 10,101 3f,~4 lUf,02f 13,976 ~987 11,778 2~ 18.150 14.647 Operating Expenditures ($ OOO's) Parks and recreation 1,791 10,224 951 4.437 11,157 671 38,053 450 60 1,063 576 Other cultural 354 0 8 0 1,577 7 2,983 10 0 0 0 Total recreation and cultural 2,146 10,224 959 4.437 12,734 678 41,036 460 60 1,063 576 Libraries 454 1,632 238 596 3,714 112 12,715 110 11 323 136 Cost ($) per capita Parks and recreation 44.01 100.55 58.90 118.81 103.66 48.02 121.19 38.21 28.27 58.57 39.32 113.58 Other cultural 8.71 0.00 0.48 0.00 14.65 0.47 9.50 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.71 Total recreation and cultural 52.72 100.55 59.38 118.81 118.32 48.48 130.69 39.02 28.27 58.57 39.32 122.29 Libraries 11.15 16.05 14.75 15.96 34.51 8.03 40.50 9.37 5.29 17.80 9.30 34.51 Difference from Big Three average ($ per cap.) Parks and recreation 69.56 13.03 54.68 (5.23) 9.92 65.56 (7.62) 75.37 85.31 55.01 74.26 Other cultural 0.01 8.71 8.23 8.71 (5.94) 8.25 (0.79) 7.90 8.71 8.71 8.71 Total recreation and cultural 69.57 21.74 62.91 3.49 3.97 73.81 (8.40) 83.27 94.03 63.72 82.97 Libraries 23.37 18.47 19.76 18.56 0.01 26.48 (5.98) 25.14 29.23 16.71 25.22 Additional expendibJre required ($ OOO's) Total Parks and recreation 2,831 1,325 883 (195) 1,067 916 (2,392) 888 180 998 1,088 7,589 Other cultural 0 886 133 325 (639) 115 (247) 93 18 158 128 971 Total recreation and cultural 2,831 2,211 1,016 130 428 1,032 (2,638) 981 199 1,157 1,215 8,560 Libraries 951 1,878 319 693 1 370 (1,878) 296 62 303 369 3,364 Total 3,782 4,088 1,335 823 428 1,402 (4,517) 1,277 260 1,460 1,585 11,924 I I I I I I r I r I I , I I I I I I I Schedule IX ONE-TIER STUDY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPERATING EXPENDITURES 1991 ACTUALS FROM FINANCIAL INFORMATION RETURN Expenditure Category CUmberland Gloucester Goulboum Kanata Nepean Osgoode Ottawa Rideau Rockcliffe* Vanier West Region Park Car1eton Population 40,697 101,677 16,151 37,344 107,627 13,976 313,987 11,778 2,113 18,150 14,647 678,147 Planning and zoning Operating expenditures ($ OOO's) 605.4 1,487.9 175.8 523.9 843.6 160.3 5,600.0 64.8 29.2 226.1 237.1 2,545.8 Operating expendibJres per capita ($) 14.88 14.63 10.88 14.03 7.84 11.47 17.84 5.50 13.82 12.46 16.19 3.75 Economic development Operating expenditures ($ OOO's) 118.1 170.9 1.3 236.0 14.0 6.3 4,075.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3,2978 Operating expenditures per capita ($) 2.90 1.68 0.08 6.32 0.13 0.45 12.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.86 " 1990 Financial Information Return information used as it is more representative of a normal year. I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I f I I , Schedule X ONE-TIER STUDY LONG-TERM DEBT AND RESERVES 1991 ACTUALS FROM FINANCIAL INFORMATION RETURNS Cumberland Gloucester Goulboum Kanata Nepe81l Osgoode Ottawa Rideau Rockcliffe Vanier West Pari< Carleton Population 40,967 101,677 16,151 37,344 107,627 13,976 313,987 11,778 2,113 18,150 14,647 Debt ($ Millions) 1.6 1 0.1 0.3 2.5 0.1 120.6 0 0 3.2 0.1 Debt per capita ($) 39.1 9.8 6.2 8.0 23.2 7.2 384.1 0.0 0.0 176.3 6.8 Reserves ($ Millions) 14.8 29.9 7.7 9.4 42.9 0.9 48.6 1 0.5 3.3 3.6 Reserves per capita ($) 361.3 294.1 476.8 251.7 398.6 64.4 154.8 84.9 236.6 181.8 245.8 I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I Schedule XI ONE-TIER STUDY PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 1991 ACTUALS FROM FINANCIAL INFORMATION RETURNS Cumberland Gloucester Goulboum Kanata Nepean Osgoode Ottawa Rideau Rockcliffe Vanier West Park Car1eton 1991 Payments in lieu of taxes ($ OOO's) 67 10,307 194 1,576 8,033 34 114,587 127 997 278 227 Payments in lieu per capita ($) 1.65 101.37 12.01 42.20 74.64 2.43 364.94 10.78 471.84 15.32 15.50 I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I f I I I Schedule XII ONE-TIER STUDY TAX IMPACT OF ONE-TIER GOVERNMENT ($ OOO's) Cumberland Gloucester Goulboum Kanata Nepean Osgoode Ottawa Rideau Rockcliffe Vanier West. Total Parl< Carleton Assuming $25 Million Cost Increase (391) (4,970) 754 (711) (2,454) 604 32,252 1,046 865 (2,530) 535 25,000 % Change (2.6) (9.1) 12.1 (3.4) (3.8) 12.1 12.3 21.6 36.9 (25.2) 7.6 5.5 Assuming $50 Million Cost Increase 364 (2,363) 1,119 346 801 896 47,656 1,354 1,032 (2,137) 932 50,000 % Change 2.5 (4.3) 18.0 1.7 1.2 18.0 18.2 28.0 44.1 (21.3) 13.2 11.0 Assuming $75 Million Cost Increase 1,119 192 1 ,484 1 ,404 4,056 1,189 63,110 1,661 1,200 (1,745) 1,330 75,000 % Change 7.5 0.3 23.8 6.7 6.3 23.8 24.0 34.3 51.3 (17.4) 18.8 16.5 Notes: 1. These numbers were calculated by Price Waterhouse. 2. This analysis excludes school taxes. 3. It has been assumed that the combined one-tier tax requirement would be distributed in the same way as the region's requirement is presently distributed, except that the discounting of residential and farm assessment would be an average of the present and local discounting.