Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-354-90 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE ARASKA.GPA REPORT F i le # Res. # By-Law # (,STING. General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: December 3, 1990 REPORT #: PD-354-90 FILE #: Pln 17 .2 SIMECT: PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT GANARASKA REGION AND OTONABEE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-354-90 be received; 2 . THAT the Region of Durham and the Ministry of Natural Resources be requested to initiate discussions among all conservation authorities within the Region to address the Conservation Authorities Review Program with particular attention to the definition of appropriate jurisdiction limits to serve the revised mandate of conservation authorities over the next 30 years; 3 . THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority be advised that the Town of Newcastle cannot support the amalgamation proposal until there is a resolution of the CLOCA jurisdictional limits; and 4 . THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority and the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority. BACKGROUND 1. 1 At its meeting held on October 29 , 1990 Council received correspondence from F.G. Houston, Chairman on the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) forwarding the REPORT NO. : PD-354-90 PAGE 2 Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority/Otonabee Region Conservation Authority Program Review Committee Report. Council referred the matter to the Director of Planning and Development for review and report to the General Purpose and Administration Committee. Council also directed that a representative of the GRCA be requested to attend the meeting. 1.2 In December of 1987 , a Provincial Committee released a report which summarized the results of the first comprehensive review of Conservation Authorities since the enactment of the Conservation Authorities Act in 1946 . Their report entitled A Review of the Conservation Authorities Program was also know as the "Burgar Report" . The Review focused on four principles components for the reform of the Conservation Authorities as follows: Role and Mandate i Amalgamation of Authorities Membership Funding The most controversial issue related to the amalgamation of various authorities. The Burgar Report proposed the amalgamation of the Ganaraska (GRCA) with the Central Lake Ontario (CLOCA) Conservation Authorities. It was further proposed that the Otonabee (ORCA) and Kawartha (KRCA) Conservation Authorities amalgamate. 1.3 In September of 1988, Report PD-200-88 was adopted by Council as the Town's comments on the Review. In summary, the Town's comments at that time were as follows: REPORT NO. : PD-354-90 PAGE 3 Role and Mandate The Town generally concurred with the proposed clarification to the mandate of the conservation authorities although raised some concerns with regard to urban drainage and outdoor recreation responsibilities . Amalgamation The Town supported the amalgamation of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority since it would provide consistency across the Town of Newcastle and enable larger population centres to assist in the development of programs across the entire area. Membership The Town supported the proposal to reduce the size of membership on the Authorities and continuation of the current system of appointment through Regional Council . Funding The Town reserved comment on the proposed changes to the funding formula until further information was available. 1.4 Subsequent to the release of the Burgar Report and receipt of comments from municipalities, conservation authorities and other agencies, the matter was reviewed further by a Provincial Committee consisting of representatives of the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources. This resulted in a document entitled Conservation Authorities Program Review: Outstanding Issues, also known as the "Ballinger Report" . Unlike the Burgar Report, the Ballinger Report Committee recommended the amalgamation of the CLOCA and Kawartha Conservation Authorities and the amalgamation of the Ganaraska and Otonabee Conservation Authorities . 1.5 Since early 1989 , the staff and members of the GRCA and ORCA have been meeting to follow-up on the recommendations of the iZU REPORT NO. : PD-354-90 PAGE 4 above-mentioned reports related to the Review of Conservation Authorities Program. On October 11, 1990, a report of the joint GRCA/GRCA Program Review Committee report was presented and ratified by the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (Attachment #1) . The Authority forwarded the report to the Town for review and comment prior to December 15, 1990. 2. SUMMARY OF GRCA/ORCA RECOMMENDATIONS 2 . 1 Role and Mandate The GRCA/ORCA have jointly developed a proposal for programs which would be delivered in a comprehensive manner. The programs consist of Core Programs, those which would be necessary and mandatory by all conservation authorities, and Non-Core Programs, those which are fundamental but widely divergent in applicability among various authorities and optional depending on local need. The proposed responsibilities are similar to those presented by the Provincial Report and those endorsed previously by Town Council. The GRCA/ORCA report notes that to meet the minimum standard required by the Province and municipalities, additional expenditures for the new authority were identified for: Urban drainage review Natural areas planning Regional recreation Conservation information 2 .2 Amalgamation The Ganaraska and Otonabee Region Conservation Authorities are proposing an amalgamation which would revise the jurisdictional area to more closely align with political boundaries . Consequently, several watersheds (Wilmot, REPORT NO. : PD-354-90 PAGE 5 Graham and several smaller creeks) are proposed to be transferred to the CLOCA (Attachment #2) . 2 . 3 Membership The report recommends that the new Authority be limited to 15 members . The Region of Durham would share one membership with the Township of Hope. As a consequence, the Town may not have representation on the new authority in any given year. 2 .4 Funding The Authorities have proposed an operational budget of approximately $2 . 3 million. Funding would be raised approximately equally between the Province, municipalities and revenue from Authority activities (ie. Ganaraska Forest, School Board programs) . The funding proposal would fix the municipal operating levy at $5. 80 per capita. At the present time the GRCA levy is $9 .99 per capita and the ORCA levy is $4 . 38 per capita. The Report noted that there would be a loss in assessment and levy associated with the transfer of portions of the Town of Newcastle. ORCA would experience an increased levy. 3. STAFF COMMENT 3. 1 Although the review of the role and mandate of the Conservation Authorities was likely the most significant aspect of the provincial review process, the question of amalgamation of Authorities was the issue that received the most attention and concern. Staff's comments focus on to the amalgamation issue, although this cannot be divorced from the other components . ; , REPORT NO. : PD-354-90 PAGE 6 Although there has been widespread agreement to the necessity of amalgamation in principle, there has not been any consensus by various parties on the new boundaries . In general the following positions have been taken by Authorities affecting the Town: CLOCA appears to have a preference to be realigned with Durham's boundaries by incorporating lands from the west (from the Metro Toronto Conservation Authority watershed) and lands to the east (from the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority watershed) and possibly lands to the north (from the Kawartha watershed) . Kawartha Region Conservation Authority has been categorically opposed to any amalgamation. Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority has indicated their desire to merge with Otonabee Conservation Authority and the willingness to relinquish portions of the Town of Newcastle to CLOCA. Otonabee Region Conservation Authority has indicated their desire to merge with Ganaraska Conservation Authority but some member municipalities apparently have concerns with the loss of the assessment base represented by the possible transfer of lands in Newcastle to CLOCA. 3 .2 The Ganaraska/Otonabee Conservation Authorities Review i Program Report represents a serious effort by two authorities to deal with the issues raised by the Provincial Review of Conservation Authority Programs . As such it proposes the conditions and commitments to be made for REPORT NO. : PD-354-90 PAGE 7 amalgamation and recommends an action plan with the aim of voting on amalgamation by January 31, 1991. This is the most progressive schedule of any other proposed merger. KRCA and CLOCA have not initiated any discussions . 3. 3 The reform process is difficult. This is the first comprehensive review since 1946 and there is no evidence that the reform package will be resolved shortly. Any changes that are to be made to the program of the Conservation Authorities must be structured to respond to the problems that Ontario will face over the next twenty to thirty years . In this regard, some of the more pertinent issues for the Town of Newcastle are as follows: urban development pressures in the GTA and periphery stormwater management for urbanizing environments preservation of environmentally significant features management of the Lake Ontario shoreline management of the Oak Ridges Moraine 3 .4 Both the Royal Commission on the Future of the Greater Toronto Waterfront and the Greater Toronto Area Greenlands Strategy have noted that the reform of conservation authorities is very significant in the consideration of the future of the Greater Toronto Area. Recommendation #34 of Watershed, the Second Interim Report of the Royal Commission states that "The Province should review concerns about the mandate and functioning of Conservation Authorities raised by deputants before this Commission, in order to determine whether more fundamental reforms are needed as part of the current review" . i Jl. REPORT NO. : PD-354-90 PAGE 8 Any amalgamation proposal should be judged on the merits as to whether it enables the conservation authorities to undertake their role and mandate. Moreover, the new authorities must be assured of having the assessment base and Provincial funding to undertake the role which is expected of them. While the GRCA/ORCA Program Review Report attempts to deal with concerns raised prior to the Royal Commission, until there is some clearer understanding of the future role of conservation authorities, it would appear to be premature to endorse the GRCA/ORCA proposal. 3.5 There are many possible scenarios for amalgamation. Some of these are as follows: 1. Redrawing boundaries to create a conservation authority for Metro Toronto and larger authorities on each flank, west, north and east. This would help to balance the power of the Metro Toronto Conservation Authority. In this scenario, the amalgamation of some or all of the lands within all four existing authorities, CLOCA, GRCA, KRCA AND ORCA could be considered. 2 . Creation of a very large Greater Toronto Area Conservation Authority which would most closely parallel the political boundaries . 3 . CLOCA absorbing lands from MTRCA, KRCA and GRCA to more closely align with Durham's boundaries . In this scenario, the leftover portions of KRCA, ORCA and GRCA could form a new authority, not unlike the proposal which is subject of this study. REPORT NO. : PD-354-90 PAGE 9 4 . CLOCA and GRCA amalgamate as originally proposed by the Burgar Report. 5 . GRCA and ORCA amalgamate and CLOCA and KRCA amalgamate as proposed by the Ballinger Report. Staff is concerned by the consideration of the GRCA/ORCA Program Review proposal in the absence of some understanding of the configuration of the other new authority which would have jurisdiction over the majority of the Town. There is no information on this fiscal impact on the revised CLOCA jurisdiction (Whatever that may be) . Given the increasing expectations and responsibilities which conservation authorities will face, it is questionable that a slightly enlarged CLOCA (to incorporate the Wilmot and Graham Creek watershed) could meet these requirements. At the very least, the Ajax and Pickering areas should be included within the new authority to evolve from CLOCA. 4. CONCLUSIONS 4 . 1 The GRCA/ORCA Program Review Report meets one of the major concerns of the Town, that is a consistent application and ability to respond to development pressures within the urbanizing portions of the Town. On the other hand, it raises other questions. Given that the resolution of the GRCA/ORCA merger is dependent on resolving the CLOCA and KRCA jurisdictions, it is suggested that the Region of Durham should mediate this discussion. All five affected authorities - MTRCA, CLOCA, KRCA, GRCA and ORCA would be involved in the further review of the Conservation Authorities Program as it affects the eastern flank and hinterland of Metropolitan Toronto. I iU REPORT NO. : PD-354-90 PAGE 10 4 .2 Town staff have provided CLOCA with a copy of the GRCA/ORCA Program Review Report and asked that a representative of CLOCA be in attendance at the General Purpose and Administration Committee for a discussion of this issue. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee Fran in Wu, M.C. I .P. Lawrence E. Kotseff Director of Planning Chief Administrative and Development Officer DC*FW*df Attach. 28 November 1990 Ailachmen# #1 COUNCIL DIRECTION D-4 qanaza6,ka REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 60 � I—jl6k- OCT 24 P.O.sor.328, FORT HOPE,ONTARIO L1A 3W4 TELEPHONE(416)885-8173 19 9 0. 10 . 15 FAX(416)885-9824 Mr. L. Kotseff, Chief Administrative Officer Town of Newcastle 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario A L1C 3A6 Dear Mr. Kotseff : Re: . GRCA/ORCA Program Review Committee Report Please find enclosed the above noted report to the members of the Ganaraska Region and Otonabee Region Conservation Authorities. The report was unanimously ratified at the October 11, 1990 Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority board meeting. The Authority requests that the report be tabled for Council' s review and their comments, with any recommended changes, be forwarded by December 15, 1990. Prior to December 15th, Authority representatives would be pleased to meet with Council to address any concerns arising from their review. Yours truly, F.G. Houston Chairman FGH/jml Encl. cc: Region of Durham 4� IZ' — WE RECYCLE-- FFIDGM RBVM C OHNITTIZ • IW= TO HEM= CF TER GHA AND OFCR ON H&SU l'ICH Cr yyI W ffRF1G ISSM F" A03PIUDGM IN p'RT»YPSE Since early 1989, staff and members of the C,anaraska Region Conservation Authority and the Otonabee augion Oenservatim Authority have been meeting to discuss the Burgar and Ballinger Committee Reports. These reports dealt essentially with the following four components for the reorganization of the amservation Authorities: 1. role and mandate 2. funding 3. membership 4. amalgamation of eane Authorities The joint GRCA/ORCA Program Review Committee has reviewed all the above ccn or nts. 1. The role and mandate has been defined through discussions with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario and members of the Authorities. A copy of the proposed role and mandate with a definition of core and non-core is attached. (see Appendix A) . 2. The funding policy has been simplified to provide for a " grant on operating and administration costs of core programs. Non-core programs would have to be financed from other than M.N.R. transfer funds. S*plementary grants would be diewntinued. 3. A reduction in memberrhi.p was a st=V recommendation of the Association of Municipealities of Ontario ar4 is seen by them and the Ministry as a means of allowing Conservation Authorities to operates effectively without an Executive Oommittoe. 4. Amalgamation affects 24 of the 38 Conservation Authorities and is being discussed to varying degrees by the partners proposed in the Ballinger The Ministry and ACAO have stressed that the four components are part of a package which will insure a more effective and efficient role for the Cbnseivatian Aud=ities. As part of the package, the province will provide additional fug with which to aarxy out this role. After inita.al meetings in the spring of 1989, a joint meeting of the two Authorities endorsed an agreement, in principle, for the amalgamation of their respective jurisdictions based on general support of the followingo .0. - the merging of existing programs most of which demonstrate a high degree of con atibility. - ahe realignment of the GRCA jurisdictional area to more closely align it with the political boundary of the Regicnal Mnicipality of Durtgn. - The inclusion of a portion of Manvers Township which drains to the Okcrsabee watershed but is not presently represented on the Authority. - The reduction of the aombined membership of the two A*I=ities from 34 to 15. - The retention of a system of advisory boards• The protec-ticn of existing stuff of the two Authorities. - The rational itar_ion of administrative headquarters with a central office proposed in the Peterborough area. The two Authorities agreed, in principle, to this amalgamation on the understanding that the following be resolvedt 1. DeveloFment of an acceptable program that meets the provincial mandate and local watershed needs. 2. Provincial and municipal funding that is adequate to achieve the agreed to progrM. 3. Membership representation. The GWOfr-A Program Review Oommittee has examined each of these. outstanding issues and makes. the following reo mwidations. 1. PgMM Pet!!LW to Meet PravincdA . !lutdnt+e app Tom' biases. The GF4A/ORM have jointly developed a proposal for programs which would deliver in a comprehensive and quality manner, the following core and non- com programs Which would apply to the new jurisdiction. pnograms flood control - erosion control - pt-a ticn of natural areas - water G&VOl.in9 - urban draim qe review regionally significant recreation areas - forest management an Authority owned lands - tree planting on conservation Authority and other lands - extension ion services conservation information iii 3 Non-core Psogr=e - forest management on other lands - heritage conservation - outdoor education To carry out the above to the minimum standard required by the prwir,,.,e and the muncipalities, additional expenditures were identified for the following programs: - urban drainage review natural areas planning regional recreation - oonservation information 2. Pxvvin ial and Mmicipal ding to a the ftn oeed Progrm Ttw eamittee has reviewed in detail the finamiall, impact of the proposed 50% provincial grant for the core program of the combined Conservation Authorities. It arrived at an operating budget for the new unit based on the operating program necessary to meet the provincial mete and local needs. proposed Operational Budget - $21304,526. Provincial Budget - $ 777,088 - 33.71 Mmicipal Levies $ 784,64o - 34% Other Pevenue - $ 742.797 - 32.3% The municipal portion represents a cost of $$.SO per capita. The oommittee identified three variables associated with redistribution of municipal levy on the basis of discounted equalized assessment affecting levy charx0s. 1) Into degree of municipal support as determined by the value of the local, share raised; 2) me Loss of assessment and levy associated with removal of portions of the Town of Newcastle from the GRCA jurisdiction - value of levy $118,514.00; 3) The timing of the redistribution of levy on the basis of discounted equalirM assessment. See Tables 1 and 2 appended. 3. MembErrahip The committee put forward a proposal to reduce membership in the new Authority from 34 to 15 members in line with the recommendatione of the Burgar Report. Groupings of municipalities were recommended (see Appendix B) but it was suggested that other combinations would be considered so long as the total was no more than 15 inolvding 2 provincial reps. 4 Set out below, not necessarily in the order of importance, are advantages of an amalgamation as identified by the program Review Committee. 1. Neither aonservation Aut=ity has been able to carry out a full program as required under the proposed role and mandate. Therefore, this is not an enlargement of an adequate program but an enlargement needed to bring the organization and programs to an acceptable level of operation. 2. The expansion required by each Authority independently would be more oostly than an amalgamation and expansion of the cm biped Authority. 3. A combined xythority will provide better staffing since there will be no duplication between the two Authorities and all program areas will be adequately covered. 4. There will be consistent policies and programs over the combined watersheds. 5. The new Authority will be better able to respond to the public denserd for more oanprehensi.ve water management programs. 6. There will be greater sources of "other" funding, e.g. Ganaraska Forest revenue of $75,000 to $100.000 net annually. 7. A larger unit can combine in its requests for dollars end wt ompet4 with each other for the gum dollars. 8. There will be an expanded Authority office in the Peterborough area with appropriate provincial W4 oth= funds to establish it. 9. There will -be economies of scale, erg. one radio system, a reduction in the number of vehicles required, fewer per diems, reduced travel costs. 10. A single Authority can better provide planning and projects to protect the graundwster and source areas an the Oak Ridges Moraine. 11. Peterborough city will be better able to counter the negative emriromental pressures of encroachment by the Metro Toronto Aegicn. 12. Both the conservation Authorities share the sections of the Trent-Severn Waterway and its tributaries at Rice LAke and the water quality problems involved. 13. A combined Authority will be better able to provide technical advice and phy3ical projects to help municipalities protect sensitive areas. 14. Riable Authorities to better respond to the direction of government. s 15. Each of the present Conservation Authorities has progoram deficiencies which can be compensated for by the existing programs of the other, e.g. ORCA Water Manatgement Regulations which could be expanded into the Ganaraska pegion Conservation Authority; w4zh Oonservat.ion Services program to supplement weaknesses in ORCA's program. The result will be better service at minimal additional cost. 16. Provisicn of a self sufficient outdoor education centre for use by wl=l boards in both Qxumwvaticn Authorities. 17. The combined Authorities will be better able to take a leadership role in the environmental field in conjunction with other resources management agencies in the Peterborough area. e;.g. M.N.R. office, OX.A.H., Trent University. PAOa;Om anaTWO FOR hK4NWrI W To make the proposed amalgamati m possible, the Program Review Cmmnittee has identified the following items which it foels must be guaranteed by the province and the GrCA and oRC, to ensure the success of the amalgamation. A Pzqposed FZOVi xdal Q3100ibNOtA 1. Interim provincial funding to reduce the impact of the levy increase an ORM municipalities. 'A* province to eaotribute as follows: year 1 - 1992 - $112,688.94 year 2 - 1993 - $ 84,516.94 See Table 3 year 3 - 1994 - $ 56,344.94 year 4 - 1995 - $ 28,172.94 Total $281,723.76 This levy increase would be independent of C.P.I. adjustments and/or increases in the donservaticn Authority programs. 2. To help offset future levy increases, the MNR would transfer operation and management of the Ganaraska Forest to the now Authority by year five of the transition period. As part of the transfer, the Minister of Natural Resources waaldt - forgive the accumulated debt on the forest ($10Ooo,000 plus or minus): - allow the Authority to keep the net revenue fray the forest operation for conservation purposes (1990 estimate $75,004 to $100,000 per - reimburse the Authority for municipal property takes on the forest area (1990 estimate $90,000) . 3• A guarantee that the Authority could retain, for conservation purposes, the net revenue from the disposal of any of its assets. 6 4. Transitional funding in the amount of $200,000 as set out below: - Determining an appropriate manner of disposal of the GRCA administrative Centre and development of new administrative headquarters, irwluding searches, meet.iNs, appraisals, plans, etc. $ 100000. O=pen$ati.on for staff retraining, relocation, equalization of salaries, benefits, etc, including studies wtA reports - $ 30,000. Development of a conservation strategy for the new Authority including • public meetings • media involvement, pramtion, p2'aw ional. materials (logo, relettering etc.) • transportation, per diems etc. with the objective of maximizing public input to the direction of the new Authority - $ 60,000• - Implementation Cb-�inator (not the General Wl"Or but a contract person to eo-ordinate the mmigemation v*dle the remaining staff carries out the resource conservation progm. This will Will include salary, benefits, transportation, meetings, reports over a two year period of implementation. - $100,000• B. Propoeed is by GWWCSM cn n 1. The new Authority would subject to a 50% grant carry out programs to meet the required provincial mandate to the extant required within the subject watersheds. 2. ORGA municipalities would adjust their per capita levy to that of the GRCA muncipalities on the basis.of discounted equalized assessment within five years of amalgamation. 3. The administrative offices of the GRCA would be sold or otherwise disposed of. 4. Section 11 (5) of the Omsesvation Authorities Act would apply. "Upon the establishment of a new Authority and the disolution of the existing Authorities under subsection (4), all the assets and liabilities of the diaeolved Authorities vast in and beoome assets and liabilities of the new Authority. R.S.O. 1980, e.85,9.11". 7 5. Both Authorities would strive to attain a balanced financial operating . position by the time of amalgamation. 6. She dedicated capital reserves of each Authority would be resp6cted by the new Authority and used for the purposes for which they were set up by the GRCA and the ORCA. Ig'73qOgDd'fC W kC7Et ALVICIN The program Review Committee reaffirms its support of the agreement, in principle, approved by the GRCA and ORCA in 1989 and recommends that this should now be moved forward to a final decision on amalgamation. The Program Committee recommends: 1. Adoption of the core/non-core program reflected in a combined operating budget of $2,304►525 for the new Authority. 2. Provincial funding be sought at a 50% grant rate for the core program, in the amount of $777,088. 3. Municipal funding be committed in the amount of $784,640, distributed among the member municipalities as per Table 3. 4. A membership of 15 fr;)r the new Authority with representation as noted in Appendix B. Further, the Program Review Committee recommends that the GRM/ORC'A commit to amalgamation under the conditions as recommended by the committee and proceed as follows: 1. 71hat the report of the program Review Committee be presented to each member municipality for endorsement. 2. Endorsement by the two Conservation Authorities of the conditions for amalgamation and a reoanmendaticn thats "The Minister of Natural Resources be asked to call a meeting under Section 11 of the Conservation Authorities Act to vote on the proposed amalgamation of the Authorities. She conditions of amalgamation would be incorporated in the amalgamating Crder-in-Council". 3. That the municipal consultations be scheduled so that the meeting under Section 11 could be held before January 31, 1991. Respectfully SuIldtted Ommittee Members GWA ORCA Gerry Wuston, Chairman Barb Jinkeracn, Chairman George Henderson Ron Scott Gary n,lntan Dave Adair Ray Ebmon Anderson Conservation Authority Core/Non-Core Mandate Detailed Definitions August 29, 1990 OCEZ PFCGWW Those which are necessary and compulsory for all watershed management units and which will be eligible for Ministry of Natural Resources transfer payments. PPDGNM Those which, while fundamental to a comprehensive watershed program, have widely divergent levels of applicability among Authorities and, as such, are optional depending upon local need. They must be supported by funding other than Ministry of Natural Resources transfer payments. AFPENDU B 'The committee suggests the following representation for municipalities which will be members of the amalgamated CxaWrvation Authority. Town of Cobourg 1 Town of Fort Hope I whips of Haldimand and Hamilton 1 Township of Hope and Region of DAiwn 1 Township of Smith 1 Townships of North and South Monaghan and Otcnabee 1 Townships of Dummer and Douro and the Village of Lakefield 1 Townships of Cavan and Manvers and Village of Millbrook 1 7ownships of &ily and 3u%i a •1 Villages of Norwood and Hmatings and Aaphodel Township 1 City of Peterborough 3 prvvince of Ontario 2 15 and further, THAT for the purposes of determining future membership for the amalgamated Authority, the follcowing guidelines be utilized: a) For those municipalities or groups of municipalities with a population less than 25,000 in the amalgamated Authority, the representation be one member. b) For those municipalities or groups of municipalities where the population is 25,000 or more but less than 50,000 in the amalgamated Authority, the reprew4"tion be two muses. c) For those municipalities or groups of municipalities where the population is 50,000 or more but less than 100,000 in the amalgamated Authority, the representation be three members (100,000 or more, four) . and 'IW where municipalities propaee groupings other than those met out as above, that recommendations 1 and 2 apply and additionally, grouped Mutii.cipal.it ies must be ecntig=w. tOttslet 17,1111 TAILS l rstfasstiss of 61 CA ed "CA Cue t Ies-Core trefuu L 1 1 0 t 0 1 f T I T I 1 7 ............•.... --•-•---•••-------------•---------..•......----•-....•.--..................••----......---........------......----•-•-•--..............................••.... • TOTAL $I t G 11 a I f 1 A T 1 ! t 0 1 f 1 A L L 4 1 1 1 C I 1 / 1111119/MAL t { t 1 I I 1 f I T A L C.A. C 0 1 1 f t 0 6 I A I /01•COtt PIOG11M SI\ G I A 9 f 2 A T 9 sum? 501 t t ►I f I a T / --- ----- SUM? --------------------------------------• L t - - - --•...- -- --^ 61 ART LITT OT111 LITT OT191 MAL GRAS? LITT Ifitl Gaut - LITT - __ OTIRS ----------------- ............................................................. h"Ibistutiss: ►.1 114"s a /ac t 221,751.1/ 116,575.11 111,415.11 1,111.11 1.11 11,613.21 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 221,151.61 116,575.11 112,115.70 lf,71).21 ►.2 Tta"I A tzr Me 51,426.11 14,266.11 24,266.1) 1.11 1.11 1,01).91 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 51,126.11 11,246.13 24,166.01 2,111.14 A.3 qs)i. ht/11 at 11 11,316.11 1,91I.SS 1,111.55 1.11 1.11 411.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 11.316.11 1,911.5S 1,912.SS 411.91 A.4 Yt. A I41q. 21,26).51 11,)11.41 1/,311.01 1.11 1.11 614.52 1.01 0.11 1.11 1.11 11,263.51 11,311.41 11,)19.41 62131 1.5 lss./Itllitl s 116,614.11 51,111.14 43,119.14 7,611.01 1.11 5,016.12 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 116,611.11 51,111.0 1),119.11 12,016.12 ►.6 4kse[sl 111/1 so 1 11,112.11 1,116.15 1,616.15 1.11 1.11 151.31 1.11 1'11 1-11 1.11 111,011./1 /,616.15 1,616.11 ISI.)1 ............•... -- ................................................. ........ --------------------•-----•--- 441 416.11 201,469.66 117,10.66 11,711.11 1.11 21,556.11 1.41 1.11 1.11 1.11 441,116.11 111,169.66 1f1,149m 11,256.91 --- -------------- ►t0aA1 sl/net 1.1 Safes, Iestt t iS1.241.41 21S,277.11 211,271.11 17,111.11 33,$15.24 44,165.16 137,510.11 $1,711.11 61,111.11 1.11 141,111.41 351,111.11 )11,116.)1 lI),16S.f6 1.1 Ttsttl 6 Is s es 34,192.11 16,321.41 16,321.41 1.11 1.11 2,13S.16 11,515.11 S,711.51 5,111.5/ 1.11 16,)61.11 11,115.}1 22,115.91 1,1)5.11 I.I gs10. ►st/1 sal 16,14).11 1,111.41 7,911.41 1.11 111.21 1.11 5,161.11 2,511.11 2,S1t.11 1.11 22,113.11 11,561.41 11,411.61 1.11 16,161.51 7,131.41 1,311.45 351.11 64132 1.11 1.11 1.41 1.11 1.01 16,1i1.S1 1,111.49 1,111.11 )51.// {.$ lutt/KI1/ s s 227,111.11 26,411.43 26,411.43 114,152.01 261.94 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.01 227,111.11 26,419.43 26,617.37 174,192.11 IA Gesetsl It sea 256,591.11 1,313.15 )7,11).15 61,511.11 16,14S.51 112,641.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1St,551.11 9,311.15 i),/51.15 164,111.11 1.1 OF/Wilt m t 31,641.11 11,121.11 12,155.11 3,125.11 1.11 1.11 1.41 1.41 1.11 1.11 13,641./1 16,119.51 12,115.51 ),125.11 Csst[el !.1 Nd Ysaft s 221,126.11 15,763.11 4,651.11 11,17).11 19,511.11 31,111.11 15,111.11 11,511.11 11,511.11 1.11 166,126.11 11,11].11 )i,pl.tl 111,11).11 1.9 Cs4rssltT I 1 221,213.11 22,251.11 1,25).11 14,111.11 61,145.11 116,151.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 221,213.11 22,251.51 1$,214.51 131,751.11 ------------- •-------- - ss1 fetal 1,614,713.71 417,962.64 )21,)44.64 411,141.11 161,147.41 291,611.12 171,315.11 19,65131 17,651.51 1.11 1,164,121.11 561,611.14 S16,171.S4 101,539.12 --------------- -----------••-------------•------•---•-------------------------------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------- ------------ - . USIA W& 1,125,211.11 641 412.)1 521,114.31 423,541.11 1111 161.41 311,156.11 119,315.11 if 651.51 If 657.51 1.11 2,314,525.11 771,111.11 716 611.11 111,796.11 --•------•----- ----------------- Gus- ttta I 32.35 24.11 15.13 7.10 iS.12 111.11 51.11 51.01 1.11 111.11 1.14 1.14 1.12 TABLE 2 Municipal Levy Analysis - Amalgamated GRCA/GRCA Unit 1990 Levy Proposed Levy Proposed Change Levy Operating Per Operating S i Per Op. Levy S t Per Per Levy Capita Levy Change Change Capita Redistributed Change Change Capita Capita According to DEA Ganara.- ka $366,625. 9.99 $358,117. (81508. ) (2.3) 9.75 $212,542. (154,083. ) (42.03) (4.20) 5.80 Otonab a 431,237. 4.38 426,523. (4,714. ) ( 1.1 ) 4.33 572,098. 140,861. 32.66 1.43 5.80 $797,862. $784,640. (13,222. ) $784,640. Ganaralka population 36,712 (Newcastle modified) • Otonabee population 98,446 (Manvers modified) • ratio of DEA's GRCA 278 1 ORCA 73% 2.7 ratio of redistributed levies GRCA 212,542. 1 ORCA 572,098. 2.7 ratio populations GRCA 36,712 1 ORCA 98,446 2.7 i _ TABLE 3 E•ualilatlen 01 icipal levy apporttonoeut over a 5 year period Operating levy bpi constant 1990 OEA Proposed levy Year I I Year 2 1 Year 3 1 Year 4 1 Year 5 1 levy by Population by Per Capita Municipality levy Apportio00ent 184,640.00 Authority Authority Two of Newastir 123,671.41 0.51271 4,511.10 4,572.10 -%.301 4,572.10 0.001 4,572.10 0.001 4,572.10 0.001 4,572.10 0,001 T4wo N CeNwrg 991509.72 10.15591 15,179.73 05,179.73 -14,401 15,179.73 0.001 15,179.73 0.001 85,179.73 0.001 85,119.73 0.001 low of Pert a 70,145.18 7.72891 60,644.04 60,644.04 -14.401 60,644.04 0.001 60,644.04 0.001 60,644.04 0.001 60,644.04 0.001 Ma14110a d Tovasill 2,954.63 0.32231 2,528.89 1,528.89 -14.411 2,521.89 0.001 2,521.19 0.001 2,521.89 0.001 2,526.19 0.001 Wool ltoo T4woih p 46,591.04 5.08361 39.6117.96 39,881.16 -14.401 39,881.% 0.001 39,887.% 0.001 39,881.% 0.001 39,887.96 0.001 Mot Township 22,233.61 2.42561 19,032.23 19,032.23 -14.401 19,032.23 0.001 19,032.23 0.001 19,032.23 0.001 19,032.23 0.001 CATM Township 502.28 0.03481 429.91 419.91 -14.391 429.98 0.001 429.91 0.001 429.98 0.002 4M54 0.001 tech Manvers Townslnt 309.43 0.03401 267.13 267.13 -13.671 267.13 0.001 267.13 0.001 267.13 0.001 10.13 0.001 212,542.06 36,712 3.79 Village of most a s 1,548.14 0.26131 2,050.26 1,646.66 6.361 1,747.63 6.131 1,148.61 5.781 1,949.59 5.461 2,050.56 5.111 City of Peterlic o gh 180,335.10 47.32411 371,323.12 298,181.01 6.371 316,466.14 6.131 334,751.21 5.711 353,036.41 5.41t 371,321.55 5.181 Village of tad fi It 8,613.10 1.45401 11,408.67 9,161.25 6.361 9,723.04 6.131 10,284.13 5.781 10,846.61 5.4tt 11,408.40 5.181 Village of Nor 3,247.65 0.54831 4,301.18 3,454.47 6.371 3,666.31 6.131 3,111.15 5.781 4,089.98 5.461 4,301.82 5.181 Village $I Mill Ir ok 3,487.14 0.58881 4,619.96 3,709.14 6.361 3,937.34 1.131 4,164.13 5.781 4,392.33 5.461 4,619.82 5.181 Township •1 Ass h el 6,106.75 1.03092 8,008.85 6,495.56 6.371 6,893.88 6.131 7,292.20 5.781 1,190.53 5.461 1,088.15 5.181 Tomaship of h 0 10,951.69 1.64881 14,506.42 11,641.67 6.361 12,363.00 6.131 13,077.32 5.781 13,791.64 5.461 14,505.% 5.181 Township of N am r 12,999.64 2.19451 17,21132 13,127.45 6.371 14,675.39 6.131 15,523.31 5.781 16,371.25 5.461 17,119.18 5.181 Township of Eadv Nor a It,162.28 2.16351 22,461.17 11,042.22 6.372 19,141.61 6.131 20,255.00 5.711 21,361.39 5.461 22,467.71 5.111 Math Monaghan T waship 6,011.29 1.02611 8,051.19 6,465.14 6.361 6,861.60 9.131 7,251.05 5.711 7,654.51 5.461 6,050.97 5.182 OtauaAet Tamisli 17,664.76 2.98211 23,398.75 11,789.50 6.371 19,941.72 6.131 21,693.93 5.781 22,246.15 5.461 23,398.36 5.111 Saith Township 39,450.15 6.65911 52,255.45 41,962.56 6.371 44,535.80 6.131 47,109.03 5.711 49,682.27 5.461 52,255.51 5.181 Cava Township 15,254.15 2.57511 20,205.26 16,225.22 6.371 17,220.18 6.131 11,215.15 5.711 19,210.12 5.41.1 20,205.01 5.181 South Maagha T vaship 5,247.72 0.68591 6,951.13 5,561.69 6.361 5,923.97 6.131 6,266.25 5.781 6,608.53 5.461 6,950.81 5.181 [ally Tovaship 3,289.04 0.55521 4,356.32 3,491.32 6.341 3,712.14 6.13t 3,927.37 5.781 4,141.19 5.461 4,356.42 5.181 ORCA pavers Tow"o p 0.00 0.11401 892.57 719.45 763.57 6.131 107.69 5.711 851.80 5.461 196.16 5.291 512,097.94 98,446 5.11 -------------------------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- -------------- 791,862.00 100.00001 784,640.00 671,951.06 700,123.06 721,295.06 756,467.06 784,640.00 784,640.00 Main A411usteent 1 juired 112,668.94 14,516.94 56,344.94 28,172.94 0.00 -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 784,640.00 784,640.00 784,640.00 784,640.00 184,640.00 Total FM RIM it nt 281,72'3.76 1 • • I / SUGQ © • • • • I CIO%-',l' Ply a A, � r, ;I � � � '1�°,Sit,, � �" .y •� `7 Ep 19 7 Arsi S's?EE rra„'13r.= :'r-• Ik�d1 l.s••�Y1 • c wt .. r i, (�r1.1 loz, ."•.I �Ci� q,��C^'� �� •� ��4��':;���5��y';�xs•'�I��� � '��� ,;�'�L7.~ w�?�'t��" 7 �t�!r� g. { '�. �l',�I'� //i' ��► y�' :F'1...i'; .���'�rA�1� Y v:��l; . �T, . ;�j' ��,,�+sp' J; s pl,.,�g' _'•����" '•5```'s.r � � •�I�fF.�����„•..tr, NJ j ^.�l ti.y:y+��.r,t � 11�'Ipi �.1j����yy1 �) ���1I�7,,•`•'�!� •�'ir]��. 4�, A� !'y' K,,g 7� �,� r�{„�/ i... .iy1 �� �•. v I t#`,' K'',p c�: ',� � ,,y:. r [.y �~�•$i Jiu�VQ & "riY �t'I I I ■♦ "I'1C' .i I^il i i � ni� '� �14`�•,.h��:�', ,If';f.,�,, �((� 1.• fir:i Ir.l •�, M 1 I 1 f 1 f 'I '� �A,�Ip 'I�/ y, .5' � poi ;�'.`v`.{ �• � � �_� � _ �� � o• •r• ,L•• � TIC'=J 1 �Y.ua'�(q.a`aiv.wb� .,�:. �� ��',• ��I �t,•�-�, � I 1 �� i �'y ���� f .7�!' �xx .wry 1,a ?i•�. '�.may.. yam,^� tS t a': .v�ss3��� ,I .� '� �����`I ; —�',� ., r�� i•••�z�: ' •, end o .< — /1,� �S.:y. �.{ ,y,'�.,�•y+j y� `. .. 1'a,i•�y�.,,,�.j•�i�1� ,�p.��, 1.�# � 1•�j ��L•,9.�•'t;�•••• i1=1 J �I4r � ""4,'w.�,`F� �.+!. I � '.v t�'` ,a71ii �'lV: Cna. CSi4r', ..t•! ii�S:4ifC � . 1 •