Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutADMIN-36-97r THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON T REPORT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE o ,~. CT T File# , ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ p Res. # '-TS ~ r Date: JULY 7, 1997 . By-Law # Report#: ADMIN.36-9'File#: Subject: GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD REPORT Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report No. ADMIN.36-97 be received; 2. THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to give the Municipality of Clarington and the other fringe municipalities of the GTA, twelve months grace from the time the legislation is passed to establish the GTSB, to opt out of the GTA, if they so choose; 3. THAT staff be authorized to proceed, under the direction of Resolution #GPA-43-96, with the assistance of the auditors, as required, to bring forth a report to Council, to examine the options of opting out of the GTA; and 4. THAT a copy of this report be sent to the fringe municipalities of the GTA and the Region of Durham. 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Resolution #GPA-43-96 (copy attached as attachment 1) which addressed the financial implications of the GTA report, directed that the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) report on the financial implications of withdrawing from the GTA. The subsequent report of Deloitte and Touche, under their Recommendation 26, suggested that this type of analysis would require the compilation of a significant quantity of data and as such, that request was beyond the scope of their report. Now that we have the Farrow report at hand, it is recommended that the CAO now continue with this direction, with the assistance of the auditors as required, to complete the analysis of the impact of leaving the GTA. o.oE °®.~.~,. r REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 2 - July 7, 1997 1.2 On December 17, 1996, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing appointed Mr. Milt Farrow'as his Special Advisor on the government's proposed intention to establish a Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB). 1.3 Mr. Farrow's mandate was to undertake consultation and advise the Minister on the following matters: • the GTSB's authority, or powers; • how it should be governed; • what type of services it should concern itself with; • how it should be funded; and • what relationship it should have with municipalities, the public and the province. 1.4 During the early months of 1997, Mr. Farrow heard a number of representations regarding the proposed GTSB, including written submissions from the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington. 1.5 On February 13, 1997, a discussion paper was released entitled "Developing A Framework for a Greater Toronto Services Board", based on the assumptions that: • a GTSB would need a legislated mandate to facilitate better coordination of services across the GTA; • it would not be another level of government; • the size and composition of the board would reflect what the board is to be; • there were a variety of ways that representation on a GTSB could be formulated and its membership structured; • the board could play a number of different roles in the delivery of services, including strategic planner, coordinator, manager, delivery agent, resolver of disputes and generator of capital; and • funding for the board would be tailored to its specific functions. REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 3 - July 7, 1997 2.0 THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL ADVISOR - "GETTING TOGETHER" 2.1 On June 18, 1997, the Office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing released Mr. Farrow's report entitled Report of the Special Advisor, "GETTING TOGETHER". The press release that accompanied the report stated that comments on the recommendations will be received by the Ministry until July 31, 1997. 3.0 THE PRINCIPLES 3.1 The recommendations in the Farrow report are based on the following principles: • The board should sustain and, where possible, enhance the quality of life in the GTA. • The board should promote a stronger GTA economic unit with a strong central core by supporting economic development and job growth in the GTA and retaining existing businesses. • The board should have a GTA-wide perspective on infrastructure issues of an inter-regional nature. • It should eliminate duplication and reduce overlap in the existing system by promoting greater cost savings and efficiencies. • The board's mandate and structure should be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure it is appropriate to the current circumstances within the GTA. • Municipalities in the GTA should be the GTSB's clients. The assets and liabilities of each member should be acknowledged and their fair value accounted for. • Governance structure of the GTSB should be inclusive and participatory, yet designed to reflect the principle of representation by population in decision- making to ensure it is accountable to its membership. • GTSB's operational and capital requirements should be financed primarily by user pay. Costs which are not covered in this way should be apportioned among the GTSB's membership, as appropriate. REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 4 - July 7, 1997 • The GTSB would be permitted to borrow or have access to Municipal Reserve Funds for financing capital expansion or maintenance of existing infrastructure. • The board's mandate should be clearly defined in legislation so its relationship to existing municipal government is clear and understandable. • Legislation should permit the board's structure, mandate and representation to change over time, at the discretion of the GTSB and/or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. • The board should be able to adapt to any municipal restructuring which occurs in the GTA. 4.0 THE MODELS 4.1 The report has identified three potential models for the structure of the committee, all based on representation by population. 4.2 Model One is that of a Single Purpose Board structured as a coordinating body, designed to gain consensus on matters of interest to: all GTA municipalities; to the provincial or federal government; or, between one or more municipalities, if they were unable to reach agreement on an inter-regional servicing issue. The GTSB would: • provide a discussion forum for responding to matters of interest to the future well-being of the GTA; • settle inter-regional matters - either proactively where the greater well-being of the GTA requires the issue to be settled more expeditiously, or on the invitation of one or other of the municipalities; and • operate GO Transit. 4.3 Model Two would see the GTSB as a dual purpose body. It would build on the discussion and settlement role outlined in Model One by adding the role of proactive strategic infrastructure coordination. The GTSB would also: • provide strategic direction on urban settlement patterns in the GTA and require the efficient use of existing infrastructure; REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 5 - July 7, 1997 • coordinate infrastructure requirements, beginning with key growth-related services such as sewer and water, transit, waste disposal, economic development, conservation, watershed management and environmental protection in the GTA; • set priorities and make decisions on capital investments for key infrastructure in the GTA; and • develop a future post-collection waste management strategy. 4.4 Model Three would have the board carry out all the functions outlined. in Models One and Two plus assume the role of owner or operator, or both, of key services in the GTA. The GTSB would also: • own and operate key services within the GTA (eg, water and sewer systems); and • eventually replace one of the two levels of municipal government. The Report does not identify the preferred model. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 The report presents thirty-three recommendations, structured around Goals and Objectives, Roles and Organization. 5.2 Under the Goals and Responsibilities section of the report it is recommended that a GTSB be created and, where possible, enhance the quality of life in the GTA when carrying out its responsibilities. The GTSB should promote a stronger GTA economic unit by supporting and enhancing policies, programs and initiatives which promote the GTA as a dynamic, interdependent and vital economic entity within the provincial, national and international contexts. 5.3 Under the Roles and Responsibilities section of the report it is recommended that the board carry out four major roles, being infrastructure coordination, discussion forum, issue resolution, and service delivery. REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 6 - 5.4 Infrastructure coordination would have strategy to provide clear direction on infrastructure, urban settlement patte of growth. It would provide strategic services and issues including: • sewer and water; • inter-regional transit; • GO transit; • inter-regional roads; • post-collection waste management; July 7, 1997 the board adopt a efficient use of rns and the phasing direction on • economic development; • telecommunications; and • conservation, watershed and inter-watershed management issues. The Board would coordinate decisions on these services to optimize the use of infrastructure, approve key infrastructure investments, apportion costs, and disseminate common information on services and issues. 5.5 In the area of Discussion Forum, the board will address matters of interest to the continued well-being of the GTA, and liaison with all levels of government. 5.6 Under the Issue Forum section, the board will settle matters related to inter-regional issues or services when there is no consensus. The board will implement decisions and apportion costs. 5.7 On the Service Delivery agenda the board will provide a long-term post-collection waste management strategy for the GTA as well as operate GO Transit. 5.8 Organization of the GTSB is to be based on a statutory corporation made up of all lower-tier, upper-tier, and single-tier municipalities in the GTA and there should be no provision for municipalities to opt out. This issue will be discussed in Section 11 of this report. 5.9 The GTSB will consist of three standing committees; an Executive Committee, an Urban Issues Advisory Committee, and a Rural Issues Advisory Committee. Representation on the initial Executive Committee will be made up of the Mayor and thirteen councillors from the City of Toronto, the Regional Chair and two Mayors from the Region of Durham, the Regional Chair and one Mayor from the Region REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 7 - July 7, 1997 of Halton, the Chair and three Mayors from the Region of York, and the Regional Chair, three Mayors, and a councillor from the Region of Peel, for a total membership of twenty-eight. when GO Transit issues are on the agenda the Executive Committee will be expanded to include three members from the Region of Hamilton- Wentworth. 5.10 The Chair of the GTSB shall also chair the Executive Committee and the initial chair should be appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with all subsequent chairs being appointed by the Executive Committee. 6.0 CLARINGTON'S POSITION PAPER 6.1 On April 17, 1997, the Municipality of Clarington approved a position paper to be forwarded to the Special Adviser to the Minister regarding the review of the proposed GTSB. In that paper, Clarington presented a number of suggestions to be considered by Mr. Farrow prior to the writing of his report. 6.2 The Clarington submission supported the retention of the Regional level of government as the primary service delivery vehicle for the major infrastructure requirements of the GTA, and that the GTSB should generally be limited to roles of strategic planning, coordination and dispute resolution, and should not, in form or function, be perceived as another level of government. Under Recommendation Four of the report, the initial mandate of the board meets the recommendations put forth by Clarington. However, although the discussion paper that preceded the report stated that the GTSB would not be another level of government, Model Three of the report clearly states that "the GTSB would also eventually replace one of the two levels of municipal government". 6.3 Clarington's recommendations pertaining to the board's operation of GO Transit, and the coordination of the overall transit service within the GTA, have been accepted in the report. However, the municipality's recommendation that the GTSB be given a limited role in REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 8 - July 7, 1997 "the management or delivery of services such as arterial roads, water and sewer systems, and waste management" has been ignored. The report identifies these areas as part of the GTSB Infrastructure Coordination Strategy, including "own or operate key services in the GTA", (eg, water and sewer systems) plus the power of borrowing to finance these services. 6.4 In the area of membership of the GTSB, Clarington recommended that it should be based on equal representation from each Region and the Metro Toronto Area. Upon reviewing the report, it should be noted that membership of the powerful Executive Committee is far from based on equal representation of the existing regions, but based on the principle of representation by population. 6.5 Clarington went on to recommend that the GTSB should have no authority to tax directly and administrative costs should be shared on the same basis as membership from each region. The report states that although the board would initially have no direct taxing powers, the administrative costs of the board would be apportioned among the members of the GTSB on a per capita basis unless a 2/3 VOTE OF THE EXECUTIVE DETERMINES ANOTHER FORMULA IS MORE APPROPRIATE. The Province would offer staff resources to work on policy related to the development of strategy for a period of eighteen months at no cost. 6.6 It is important to note that Recommendation Twenty Eight states, "The cost of all inter-regional, growth-related services which the GTSB is responsible for should be based on the principles of 'user-pay' and balanced budget. When the GTSB borrows capital it should follow the same rules as municipalities do. If, however, user pay does not cover the costs and a deficit occurs, a residual charge to the member municipalities should be apportioned on an equitable basis, 'AS DETERMINED BY THE EXECUTIVE'." 6.7 Finally, the Clarington submission stated, "It must be made clear to municipalities that the introduction of the GTSB will not result in forced amalgamations or other jurisdictional changes within the GTA". Although the report is virtually silent on this issue, Recommendation Nineteen of the report states, "Key decisions should require 2/3 vote of the Executive. Decisions could include......changes to an existing urban settlement boundary or to the phasing of significant growth." These REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 9 - July 7, 1997 sections of the report must be defined more clearly and Recommendation Fifteen states that "the board should settle inter-municipal issues or services, either proactively where the greater well-being of the GTA requires the matter to be settled in an expeditious manner or on invitation of one or more municipality." 7.0 REVIEW OF THE REPORT 7.1 A meaningful review of Mr. Farrow's report cannot be made without revisiting the numerous reports and responses to reports that have centred around the GTA over the past two years. The .recent actions of the present Provincial government in the area of "the megacity" must also be closely scrutinized in interpreting the sometimes vague recommendations surrounding the structuring of the GTSB and its proposed mandate. Given the proposed make up of the very powerful Executive Committee, which sees fifty percent of its membership coming from Toronto, with obvious representation from both Oshawa and Mississauga, one of the papers that should be looked at closely is the report entitled "Moving Forward Together", the response to the Golden Report that was presented by the mayors of Toronto, North York, Mississauga, and Oshawa in January of 1996. This submission clearly separated the urban municipalities from the rural municipalities in the GTA and was looked upon as directing the rural areas to a secondary role in the GTA. The opinions of that report toward the rural municipalities of the GTA could very well be a preview of the fate of the rural municipalities in any future GTSB. 7.2 It may be argued that the rural municipalities receive protection from the powerful Executive Committee by way of the formation of a Rural Issues Advisory Committee that would address rural issues. This committee, together with a committee to address urban issues, would be statutory, as would be the Executive Committee. However, the report also recommends that the statute permits the mandate and representation to change at the discretion of the GTSB or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Providing the opportunity for a statutory corporation with such wide discretionary powers to make fundamental changes to its mandate without consultation and legislative changes clearly would not be in the best interests of the smaller, rural REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 10 - July 7, 1997 municipalities. In addition, Recommendation Twenty-One states that municipalities can either sit on the Urban Committee or the Rural Committee. This is not acceptable to the fringe municipalities such as Clarington, which clearly would be interested in both urban and rural issues. 8.0 REPRESENTATION 8.1 Given the fact that the Region of Durham will only have its Chair and two mayors on the GTSB Executive Committee, it is a fair assumption that the Municipality of Clarington will not have direct representation on this powerful committee. That being the case, it would result in the Clarington ratepayers paying for services over which their elected officials will have no direct control or ability to contain cost, and for which there is little or no direct benefit to Clarington. 9.0 AMALGAMATION 9.1 As stated in section 6.7 above, the report is silent on the question of forced amalgamation within the proposed GTSB structure. However, it is clear that the Executive Committee will have the authority to settle inter- municipal issues on invitation of one or more municipalities. This may imply that the GTSB will eventually be given authority to make decisions on boundary issues. One thing is clear. The report states that, "there should be no provision for municipalities to opt out of membership" of the GTSB. 9.2 Once again, upon consideration of the future role of both the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington within the proposed GTSB structure, the actions of the present Provincial government should be reviewed. Recent legislation has made it clear that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is committed to the reduction of the number of levels of municipal government as well as the reduction of the number of municipalities within those levels. 9.3 With the ability to change its mandate over time, (Recommendation Thirty-One of the report) without legislative authority, the Province is transferring an enormous amount of authority to the GTSB with no limits. REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 11 - July 7, 1997 9.4 On June 19, 1997, the Toronto Star, in reporting on the Farrow Report, quoted the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, The Hon. Al Leach, as saying, "This is a transition period. The various regions within the GTA are at different stages of growth. But, I think that....whether that's three, five or ten years, the Board will become the regional government and you'll see changes in the other levels of government". 9.5 Considering all of the above, municipalities the size of Clarington should not have a high comfort level in considering its future under the proposed structure of the GTSB. 10.0 CLARINGTON'S UNIQUE TAXATION POSITION 10.1 The Municipality of Clarington is presently in a unique position within the Region of Durham and the GTA. Although Clarington is part of the GTA, through its membership within the Region of Durham, regional taxes are collected on behalf of Durham, yet educational taxes are collected on behalf of the Northumberland School Board. 10.2 At this point, the Province is still exploring two options in regards to the question of pooling of education taxes. Firstly, educational support could be charged to the commercial/industrial tax base and the residential tax base on a pooling formula, either GTA wide or Region wide. Secondly, there could be a uniform tax rate across the Province for educational purposes. If pooling were arranged within the Region of Durham, or the GTA, for educational purposes, the redirection of the Clarington tax dollar would leave a significant deficiency in the Northumberland education support. 10.3 Such a move from Northumberland to either Durham or the GTA in regards to educational taxes could see a major increase in costs to either the industrial/commercial or residential ratepayer, depending on what route the Province decides to follow for educational taxes. The Province is suggesting that there will still be a municipal component of the commercial/industrial base. We are uncertain how this will be changed from the current method. However, it would seem that in regards to the cost of education, being forced into a GTA relationship would not be good news for the Clarington taxpayer. REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 12 - July 7, 1997 11.0 CLARINGTON'S OPTIONS As the GTSB takes on the many responsibilities, eg, sewer and water, that are now provided by the Region of Durham and given the Minister has suggested that the board will become the regional government, it would appear the future demise of the Region would be inevitable. 11.1 At this point in time, it is not at all clear as to whether municipalities such as Clarington have any choice of continuing its membership in the Region of Durham and the GTA. Clearly, the relationship between Clarington and Durham has been a successful one since the Town of Newcastle was incorporated by the Regional Municipality of Durham in 1973. After due consideration, and clear indication from the residents of the municipality, should Clarington wish to bow out of the new GTSB structure, it would mean leaving the Region of Durham, and would require an amendment to the Regional Municipality of Durham Act. This, of course, would have to be done prior to the birth of the GTSB, which is slated for January, 1998. 11.2 The usual way in which the Regional Municipality of Durham Act is amended is by a Government Bill introduced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. However, the name of the Municipality was changed by an amendment to the Durham Act. The amendment was contained in a private member's bill to amend a public act. The local MPP introduced the bill, allowing a fast-tracking of the amendment. 11.3 Before Council gives any consideration to the proposal of opting out of the GTSB, it should receive the final report from staff pointing out the ramifications of such a decision. 11.4 Upon receiving such information, Council may consider taking the issue to Public Hearings and even placing the question on the ballot in the upcoming municipal elections. 11.5 All of the above, of course, would either have to be done in a timely manner, or, with the agreement of the Province, following the establishment of the GTSB, in spite of the "no opting-out clause", as stated in the GTSB report. REPORT ADMIN.36-97 - 13 - July 7, 1997 12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 As directed under Resolution #GPA-43-96, staff will continue to study and report back as soon as possible following the summer recess on the impact of leaving the GTA. 12.2 As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is seeking comment on the Farrow report by July 31, 1997, that the Minister be requested to give the Municipality of Clarington and the other fringe municipalities of the GTA, twelve months grace, from the time the legislation is passed to establish the GTSB, to opt out of the GTA, if they so choose. Respectfully submitted, W.H. Stockwell, Chief Administrative Offic r Attachment 111 G.P.& A. Minutes ADMINISTRATION 1996 Budget Restraint Program - Fee Adjustments -9- Mayor Hamre chaired this portion of the meeting. Resolution f{GPA-41-96 January 22, 1996 Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Hannah THAT Report ADMIN-2-96 be received; THAT the Attachments to ADMIN-2-96 be approved for implementation effective February 1, 1996, with the exception of the items identified fer deferral to 1996 budget deliberations on Attachment #2 to Report ADMIN-2-96; and THAT the appropriate By-laws be forwarded to Council to effect those fees and service charges that are governed by By-law. "CARRIED" GTA Task Force Report -Implications to Clarington Resolution #GPA-42-96 Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Hannah THAT the. Chief Administrative Officer and appropriate staff investigate and report on the implications that the GTA Task Force Report will have on the Municipality of Clarington as per the Purchasing By-law, FORTHWITH. "CARRIED" GTA Task force Resolution #GPA-43-96 ' Report -Implications of Clarington Moved by Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski Withdrawing THAT the Chief Administrative Officer review and report on the financial implications of the Municipality of Clarington withdrawing from the Greater Toronto Area in light of the recommendations contained in the GTA Task Force Report, FORTHWITH. "CARRIED" UNFINISHED BUSINESS Resolution #GPA-44-96 Moved by Councillor Dreslinski, seconded by Councillor Elliott THAT the delegation of Mr. Don Welsh be received with appreciation and he be advised that the Municipality will continue to work rogether with the Clarington Older Adult Association. "CARRIED"