HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-99-97 REPORT #5
THE :CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
X� Q �R�(��'CSCIF�XZC�
REPORT
Meeting: OUNCIL MEETING
9 File#
Date: October 27, 1997 Res.#
By-Lave#
Report#: File#:
Subject:
WHO DOES WHAT - IMPACT PER PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report TR-99-97 be received for information,
2. THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be provided a copy of TR-
99-97 and be advised that the Municipality of Clarington objects to the lack of
detailed information and the uncertainty of the numbers and formulas identified in
the document titled Who Does What - Budget Planning Worksheets released on
October 6, 1997.
3. THAT MPP, John O'Toole and the Commissioner of Finance, Region of Durham
be provided with a copy of Report TR-99-97.
BACKGROUND:
1.0 The Province released on October 6, 1997 the document titled Who Does What - Budget
Planning Worksheets (copy is Attachment #1). This document was to provide
information specific to each municipality such that some budget decisions could be made
for the 1998 budget year. However, the document contains on its title page, a disclaimer
that the figures are estimates, and in the introduction, on page 3, it states that the
information needed by the municipalities to understand what residential education tax
room is "will be available shortly".
1.1 This document has been reviewed by staff and the conclusion is that there are more
unanswered questions than answers provided. Some of the major concerns or questions
are summarized in point form notation as follows:
• No clear relationship or direction on many allocation formulas.
APER° 4'.'4 E
THISi PRIWEEDQ REC CIED PACER
TR-99-97 Page 2
• Much of the apportionment formulas will be governed by regulations, which are
not yet released or available.
• Weighted Assessment is suggested as the formula for allocating costs to the five
GTA Regions based on preliminary current value assessment. However, the
preliminary current value assessment numbers are y r preliminary and the
Assessment office has repeatedly indicated that it is based on a statistical sample
only with many items not included.
• The province has not released the equalized weighting factors used in the GTA. It
is implied that some type of average weighting was used since currently each
region has a different tax ratio (ie. commercial vs. residential). The factors would
have a significant bearing on the ultimate allocation of the tax burden.
• Pg. 9 - Social Assistance - number of costs not explained. ie. No decision has
been made on how costs of the employment support worker that also works on a
social assistance caseload will be shared. Also, under G.W.A. administration an
allocation has been made for an estimate for non-shareable expenditures with no
explanation as to the significance.
• Pg. 14 - Child Care - Indicates that figures exclude fee subsidies for participants
in Ontario works which total 7.6 million for the Municipal share. They state that
amounts will be determined for billing purposes prior to Jan 1, 1998. Also the
child care expenditures by program component do not agree to total allocated to
the Region of Durham.
• Pg. 18 - Public Health - indicates that the cost outside the GTA is a straight
allocation but the costs within the GTA have been put through an equalization
process. It is therefore assumed that public health costs in Metro have been
apportioned to the other Regions in the GTA.
• Pg. 21 - Public Health - The municipality will assume responsibility for
appointing/nominating board members to the Boards of Health (BOH). The BOH
are then responsible to establish annual budgets but it does not indicate if the
Municipality has any approval rights for budgets set by the BOH.
• Pg. 22 - Land Ambulance - metro cost is adjusted and allocated across the GTA.
$13.6 million annual cost for recent arbitration for paramedics is not included,
however the potential exists for this cost to be allocated across the GTA. Also, as
the province self-insures, there is no cost included for insurance for fleet or
liability. There is significant cost potential involved and less protection against
lawsuits for municipal government.
• Pg. 26 - Social Housing - Changes to tax assessment system have not been
TR-99-97 Pam
factored into the analysis. Also, social housing costs are actuals except in the
GTA where costs are equalized. It appears that no administration costs are
included in non-profit program costs, which will increase costs if they are added
later. The Region also indicates that there is a significant discrepancy between
the social housing units in Clarington provided by the Province (1,362) and the
number in Clarington estimated by Regional staff (approximately 408).
• Pg. 30 - Children's Aid Societies - indicates more accurate data on a lower tier
basis is still being compiled. This leaves a question as to the accuracy of the
data provided as the information is very brief.
• Pg. 32 - Go Transit - In discussion with the Region, a concern was expressed over
the allocation to the GTA regions based on a.m. boardings as the majority of
boardings occur east and west of Toronto and therefore outlying areas will have a
heavier burden while Metro Toronto collects commercial property taxes and
therefore gets the advantage of the commercial activity being located within their
boarders. The document also indicates that this is only one of a range of options
available that are still being reviewed. What are the other options and their
implications?
• Pg. 36 - Municipal Transit - capital costs allocated based on annualized historical
five-year capital subsidy review. However, in Clarington, the vehicle was in an
accident and replaced from insurance proceeds. This prevented the need for the
Municipality to replace but distorts any future projections.
• Pg. 45 - Provincial Offences differing, with errors in court locations.
• Pg. 54 - Regarding the Assessment function, the document states that once
legislation is in force, issues such as salaries, benefits, transfer of pensions, fixed
assets are to be "negotiated" with the province. The costs of these future charges
are expected to have an extremely negative financial impact. Also, costs were
allocated across upper tiers based on combination of equalized assessment and
number of roll entries but neither of these numbers agree to municipal records.
• Pg. 56 - re comment Managed Forests and Conservation Lands - potential changes
in School board revenues are not shown. This could translate to the Municipality
picking up the difference. There is a great discrepancy between rebate estimates
shown by the province and those calculated by municipal staff. It appears as
though, based on some definitions provided, that more properties will be eligible
for the rebate than under the current provincially funded system. Pg. 58 indicates
that the municipalities can appeal the managed forest designation. This would be
an enormous administrative task that would be necessary on an ongoing basis.
TR-99-97 Pam
• Pg 59 - Farm Tax Rebate - similar concerns as expressed above under managed
forest category. Also, indicates that part of the impact will affect upper tier
revenue rather than lower tier. This is not explained and may cause particular
difficulty in Clarington due to our differing upper tier/school board territories.
2.0 Attachment #2 is an attempt to assess, on a preliminary basis, the potential allocation of
the Who does What costs to the Municipality of Clarington. The allocation of costs is
based on the province's suggested apportionment formulas. For many of the categories,
the Province has listed the 1995 population numbers as an option for allocation of costs.
These numbers are not only out of date but in may cases do not seem to be a reasonable
basis for cost apportionment.
2.1 The impact is not conclusive because of all the unanswered questions and costs that have
been excluded from the figures. As noted above, the bottom line cannot be reasonably
calculated also because of the unconfirmed education room that will reduce the final costs
on the tax bill. It is still not clear whether the unique education tax support situation
with Clarington belonging to the Northumberland County System has been factored into
the overall assumptions.
3.0 Also attached (Attachment #3) for Council information is the Region of Durham's
response to the WDW Budget Planning Worksheets.
4.0 This report is intended to keep Council updated on the situation and to express concern
with the potential inability to adequately prepare the 1998 budget without more definitive
and accurate information for the Province.
Respec submitted, Reviewed by,
a ' . Marano, H.BSc., A.M.C.T. W.H. Stockwell,
Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer.
MAM/NT/pp
Attachments
,1
WHO DOES WHAT
BUDGET PLANNING WORKSHEETS
REGION OF DURHAM
October 1997
All figures are estimates based on Ministries' most up to date
information. Municipalities will be given further data as it is
developed. Transfer of responsibilities and related changes may
require the approval of the Legislature, where applicable.
a'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Next Steps
August 6, 1997 Release
Equalization Across the Greater Toronto Area
Program Areas:
■ Social Assistance
■ Child Care
■ Public Health
■ Land Ambulance
■ Social Housing
■ Children's Aid Societies
■ GO Transit
■ Municipal Transit- Operating and Capital
■ Septic Inspections _
■ Provincial Offences Net Revenues
■ Libraries
■ Property Assessment Costs
■ Managed Forests/Conservation Lands
■ Farm Tax Rebate
■ Gross Receipts Taxes
■ Sample Worksheet
■ Assessment Numbers
f
INTRODUCTION
This package of financial and demographic data has been compiled to assist municipalities in
working through the budgetary implications of changes in municipal expenditures resulting from
the May I proposal on Who Does What realignment of responsibilities.
Over the upcoming weeks municipalities will receive additional information that will assist them
in working through the implications of their new revenue sources including the residential
education tax room,the Community Reinvestment Fund and the Municipal Capital and
Operating Restructuring Fund.
Subject to approval by the Legislature, Who Does What would realign provincial and local
responsibilities to bring education costs under control,provide better services for taxpayers and
ease the pressure on residential property taxes.
This package represents the next level of detail following the August 6 release of financial
information on the changes in costs and revenues by geographic upper tier and northern district.
It will serve as the basis for a series of meetings between provincial and municipal officials
across the province to provide more clarity on the numbers, and to talk about the assumptions
behind the numbers.
As the Minister stated at the annual conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in
August,these meetings are the beginning of a dialogue with municipalities that will continue
over the coming months as further detail is known and decisions are made.
Each section is in the same sequence by program as the August 6. However,this document
provides the information to assess changes on each municipality upper tier, lower tier and single
tier as the case may be.
The material is set out with demographic, assessment and case load information where
appropriate so that municipalities can work out sharing arrangements that best meet local
circumstances.
In some cases, the data has been revised based on discussions with municipal staff and where
better information has been developed since August 6.
The document is intended as a budgetary aid and can be updated as further information becomes
available. There are still important decisions to be made on how to allocate the permanent $500
million Community Reinvestment Fund, and the additional transition assistance of$70 million a
year and the $800 million-plus Municipal Capital and Operating Restructuring Fund. There is
also a need for municipalities to understand what residential education tax room will be available
as the Province assumes financial responsibility for one half of the residential tax support for
school boards. This information will be available shortly. Individual ministries will also provide
program data updates when they are developed.
Additional implementation help is coming, including:
A bulletin on the new tax and assessment system will be available shortly. Seminars
started in September and will continue through to December.
An education and training program on Who Does What jointly sponsored by AMO and
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will begin in November.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will provide municipalities with progress reports
in an upcoming newsletter. Staff will also be available to provide follow-up information as
needed.
3
Education and Training
Education and training is important to ensure all staff are trained and qualified to meet new
program and funding responsibilities. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be j ointly sponsoring 15-20 Who Does What
overview sessions across the Province starting in November. These will be complemented
by more in depth sessions on clusters of programs like social services, community
infrastructure, and emergency services targeted for municipal managers.
On the finance and revenue side, management workshops are being planned with modules
on tax policy and assessment, development charges and debt and investment, and financial
reporting as follows:
► The Association of Municipal Tax Collectors and the Municipal Finance Officers'
Association are jointly sponsoring a series of one-day seminars to provide the tools
municipalities will need to develop their own blueprints for building a solid
assessment and taxation framework(sessions in Hamilton-Sep 24, Windsor-Oct 6,
Ottawa-Oct 15, Kingston-Oct 2, Sudbury-Oct 9, Thunder Bay-Oct 17).
► The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario will also be holding
a series of 10 one-day workshops on the new tax and assessment system this
November to meet the needs of their membership (sessions in London-Nov 17,
Hamilton-Nov 18, Toronto-Nov 19, Peterborough-Nov 20, Kingston-Nov 21,
Ottawa-Nov 24, North Bay-Nov 25, Sault St. Marie-Nov 26, Barrie-Nov 27,
Chatham-Nov 28).
WDW Implementation Teams
The Provincial-Municipal Implementation Team (PMIT) and the Social and Community
Health Services Implementation Team (SCHSIT) continue to advise the Government on a
number of issues including assessment delivery services and consolidated service delivery.
The Government will continue to provide information as soon as possible to assist municipal
and provincial staff in planning for their new responsibilities.
6
'v
AUGUST 6, 1997 RELEASE
POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF COSTS AN0 REVENUES
AS PER MAY 11 1997 AGREEMENT
$ Minion
Durham Region
Alten3 r&w 1 Alter 2
50%of Ed. Single Ed.Res.
Res.Tazas Tax Rate
to
Assistance 27.1
Chid Care 27.1
Public Health 3.4 ' 3.4
Ambulances 7.4 7.4
Social Housing 7.6 7.6
Children's Aid Societies 40.8 40.8
GO Transit (26) (2.6)
Transit-OPerating and Capital 21.7 21.7
Ferri" 5.4 SA
Airports 04 OA
Septic inspections 0.0 OA
Policing 02 02
Provincial Offences Net Revenues 0.0 OA
Libraries (17) (17)
Property Assessment 07 0.7
Managed Forests/Conservation Lands 4.5 4S 1.7 1.7
Farm Tax Rebate 4.8 4.9
Gross Receipts Ta)w 3.4
_ 3.4
Residential Education Tax Room 106.01
1028
Net Change in Municipal Costs/Revenues: �-
1T9 _ 212 _
Post-WDW Municipal Own-Purpose Spending 608
Efficiencies by 2000-01 608.3
(2.3%per yew in each of next 3 years) (41.1) (41.1)
WDW Net Change After Eff oiencies (23.1)
As%of Post WDW Municipal own-Purpose Spending (3-) (19.8)
(3.3)
All figures are estimates. See accompanying notes. Transfer of
require the approval of the Legge,where responsibilities arxi related changes may
applicable.
EQUALIZATION ACROSS THE GREATER
TORONTO AREA
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• the five affected programs are: social assistance, child care, public health, land
ambulances, and social housing
• total provincial and municipal expenditures are summed across the GTA for each
program
• for each program, the municipal share of spending is then calculated based on the
post-WDW realignment announced on May 1, 1997
• the total municipal share is then allocated to the five GTA regions on the basis of
their share of weighted assessment
• a weighting calculation was used to recognize the differing taxing capacity (by
property class) in calculating the share of total assessment that should be used to
allocate program costs to the GTA regions
• to estimate the change in each upper tier, the estimate of post-WDW municipal
spending is compared to pre-WDW municipal spending for that program area
8
v
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
Background to the Financial Data Released on Aug*
ugust 6:
• The province will pay 80% of allowances and benefits and the municipalities will
pay 20%. Administrative costs will be shared on a 50:50 basis.
Totals included:
• GWA allowances are forecast expenditures for 1998/99 based on municipally
provided monthly expenditure information for 1996/97.
• FBA allowances are forecast expenditures for 1998/99 distributed based on 1996/97
actual expenditures.
• These 1996/97 expenditures are combined for FBA and GWA and are used to
establish distribution ratios. These ratios are used to allocate all other costs i.e.
administration, Ontario Drug Benefit, and Employment Services.
• Ontario Drug Benefits- an allocation to each municipality was prorated, based on
combined FBA and GWA allowance expenditures.
• GWA administration - allocation based on total shareable expenditures, plus an
estimate for non-shareable expenditures.
• FBA administration-is based on shareable expenditures which roughly parallels the
GWA definition although there is no estimate for non shareable items such as
accommodation.
• Employment services- total estimated expenditures for 1998/99 prorated based on
combined FBA and GWA allowances and benefits.
• The expenditures exclude First Nations, Handicapped Children's Benefit,
Unorganized Territories and VRS allowances (are all outside of WDW scope).
• Province to cover 100%of technology charges to start,from savings to be generated
by technology; eventually shared 50150
• Changes potentially resulting from proposed legislation not factored into August 6
numbers (e.g. technology savings, opportunities to reduce fraud, lower rates of
assistance for new 60-64 years old and persons with minor health conditions)
• Refer to equalization in GTA
• No decision has been made on how costs of the employment support worker that also
works on a social assistance caseload will be shared(social assistance administration
currently shared 50150, all employment support shared 80/20)
Apportionment of Costs:
Proposed Social Assistance Reform Act provisions (Schedule A, Ontario Works Act,
Sections 51 and 53; Schedule B, Ontario Disability Support Program Act, Sections 40 and
41; Schedule C, Substantive Amendments to Other Statutes, Section 6; Schedule D,
Transitional Provisions, Sections 3 and 4 of Bill 142 - 1 st Reading version):
• Costs would be shared between upper, lower and single tier municipalities in
accordance with regulations.
9
REGION OF DURHAM
Social Assistance $27.15 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
The following data will assist municipalities with options on how upper tier program costs could
be apportioned between the upper tier municipality and separated municipality(s) and among the
lower tier municipalities within the upper tier.
Changein
Municipality Municipal
P tY ; Assessment 1995 Population Expenditure Caseloads='
Region_of Durham _ 8,984.:
.City of Oshawa 127,813' _ - 0:
Town of Ajax _ 58,854' _ _ p
Town of Clarington_ 53,842: 0
Town of Pickering 70,733: - 0
Town of Whig 67,039: — 0!!
Township of Brock 10,991 - -—p
.Township of Scu9-og 17,880 p
;Township of Uxbridge 14,672!
0
I.
I
TOTAL- (excludes separated municipalities); 421 824: $ ---
NOTE: Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data. —
`See last page for detailed assessment data
Where service is delivered jointly,caseloads are shown opposite municipality delivering the service.No caseload data is shown where service is delivered
locally
y
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
KEY DECISIONS FOR ONTARIO WORKS AND THE ODSP
Municipal Decisions:
• Key governance and service delivery decisions relate to the consolidation of service
management.
• A consolidated service delivery agent is a municipality or municipal service board
that is responsible for managing the delivery of social services for municipalities and,
where appropriate,unincorporated communities in a designated geographic area. It
is intended that these municipalities and service boards manage both Ontario Works
and child care, and possibly services such as social housing, public health and land
ambulance operation.
• The province has provided municipalities with a framework that indicates where
consolidation of service management is needed. We are asking those municipalities
that need to consolidate to agree on consolidation agreements that will meet local
needs within this framework. Plans will be developed by municipalities by March
31, 1998, reviewed by the province, and decisions finalized by May 31, 1998.
Provincial Decisions:
• How costs are to be shared between residents in unorganized areas and upper, lower
and single tier municipalities will be set out in regulation.
• The interim billing framework will be determined with the help of advice from the
WDW implementation teams.
- 11
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
,
Changing Responsibilities: 0ti4�� -o
Roles and Responsibilities: Ontario Works
the province municipalities
business planning for local service
establishes policy objectives, systems
is legislation, regulation and cost
CL sharing
as
plan for funding responsibilities
establishes audit framework
L allocate resources
sets standards
• consult with province
E provides directives, guidelines program management
m
Cprovides technology support systems establish local/discretionary policies
P monitors and endorses program consult with province
standards
m
it
d
cost sharing cost sharing
p direct service delivery responsibility
m
m
12
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
Ontario Works
1997: GWA/ONTARIO WORKS 1998: ONTARIO WORKS
Allowances/Benefits 80:20 Assistance; 80:20
Financial
Employment
(Community
Early Implementation of 80:20 Placement/Employment
Ontario Works (Community and/or Support/Employment
Placement/Employment 100:0 Placement)
Support/Employment
Placement)
Administration 50:50 Administration 50:50
Ontario Disability Support Program
1997: FBA 1998: ODSP
Allowances/Benefits 100:0 Income Support 80:20
Administration 100:0 Administration 50:50
VRS 100:0 Ontario Disability Support 100:0
Program -Supports to
Employment Funding
■ One key change that would result from the passage of the proposed Social
Assistance Reform Act is that sole-support parents would become the
responsibility of Ontario Works service providers over a transitional period.
■ Municipalities delivering Ontario Works will have to plan for the transfer
of service responsibilities for sole-support parent cases currently
served by the provincially operated Family Benefits Program.
13
CHILD CARE
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• Funding for child care fee subsidies, wage subsidy, special needs resourcing and
resource centres will be 80%provincial and 20% municipal. Service levels in 1998
will be based on service commitments in March, 1997.
• In the August 6 release,additional municipal expenditures were based on preliminary
provincial 1998/99 estimates, apportioned to geographical upper tiers using the
1995/96 percentage distribution of expenditure commitments for applicable services.
• Further information is provided in the table"Child Care Additional Expenditures by
Program Component":
• Figures represent the additional municipal 20%share after Who Does What,
derived from 1996/97 service contracts signed by MCSS Area Offices with
the relevant service providers.
• Approved corporations, special needs, wage subsidy and resource centres
programs were not cost shared by municipalities prior to January 1, 1998.
• For services where MCSS contracts with a municipality, figures are shown
for that municipality.
• For other service providers, expenditures are shown according to the head
office of the operator. MCSS will work with municipalities to resolve cross
boundary issues.
• In the GTA only, equalization has been applied to the total for each upper
tier.
• Figures exclude fee subsidies for participants in Ontario Works which total
$7.6 million for the municipal share, because they have not yet been fully
allocated to municipalities. Amounts will be determined for billing purposes
prior to January 1, 1998. Figures also exclude funding to First Nations
because it is not affected by Who Does What.
Apportionment of Costs:
Proposed Service Improvement Act provisions(Schedule C,Sections 7.3 and 7.5 of Bill 152
- 1 st Reading version):
Municipalities,Ontario and persons living in territory without municipal organization would
be required to share the costs of child care services.
• Where a delivery agent's geographic area includes more than one municipality, the
regulations would set out how the municipal share of the delivery agent's costs
would be apportioned among those municipalities.
• The regulations would set out how the municipal share of Ontario's costs are
apportioned.
14
REGION OF DURHAM
Child Care $3.44 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
The following data will assist municipalities with options on how upper tier program costs could
be apportioned between the upper tier municipality and separated municipality(s) and among the
lower tier municipalities within the upper tier.
Municipality Assessment* 1995 Population-
.R-6 Re of Durham --
City of Oshawa 127,813
Town of Ajax 58,854
.Town of Clarington 53,8.42
Town of Pickering 70,733 :
Town of Whitby_ — _ _ _ 67,039
Township of Brock_ _ 10,991
Township of Scugo1c. 17,880
Township of Uxbridge
14,672:
_
TOTAL (excludes separated municipalities 421,824
NOTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
*See last page for detailed assessment data
REGION OF DURHAM
Child Care
Expenditures By Program component
Approved Resource
Municipality :_Corporations Special Needs Wage Subsidy i Centres
Region of D-dr-H-am $ $ $
01 4,400 114,200 i _0
CiN of Oshawa 0 i 53,9001 274,5001
Town of Ajax 0"
1:
0 282,000 158,300 0
Town of Clarington
0 01
23,900; 0 i
:Town of Pickering 0 i
0 ' 123,2001 82,800:;
Town of Whitby 0 i 01 196,900i: 0!:
Township of Brock 01 0 i 8,9_00 0
Township of Scuqog
0 1 01 7,900 i 0
Township of Uxbridge
0 i
UT 35,2001 0'
is
TOTAL(excludes separated municipalities) 0 340,300
OTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data. 943,000 82,800 1:
CHILD CARE
KEYDECISIONS FOR CHILD CARE
Municipal Decisions:
• Who will be the delivery agent in the geographic area?
• How will costs be allocated?
• Will the municipality manage directly or contract out service delivery?
• What will the service system look like?
Provincial Decisions:
• How costs are to be shared between residents in unorganized areas and upper, lower
and single tier municipalities will be set out in regulation.
• The interim billing framework will be determined with the help of advice from the
WDW implementation teams.
16
CHILD CARE
Changing Responsibilities: C , CA44&
Roles and Responsibilities: Child Care
the province municipalities
sets legislative framework,standards and develop local service plans,including
policy objectives and policy directions allocation of resources.
and priorities.
a
a.
w
C
issues directives and guidelines. enter into MOU with MCSS
m •
• enters into memorandum of manage implementation of MOU
(a understanding (MOU)with each delivery
agent. manage child care program,including
0) developing policies and procedures
N monitors MOUs, compliance with consistent with MCSS directives and
directives etc. guidelines
m
t`
d
> continue to licence, inspect and enforce cost share
Z standards.
o enter into service agreements with service
• cost share. providers(fee subsidy,wage subsidy,
special needs resourcing and resources
va centres)
• manage fee subsidies(take client
applications,administer eligibility test, place
children, manage waiting list)
17
PUBLIC HEALTH
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• $211 million in public health costs for local services will be assumed by
municipalities. Nevertheless,the province will retain responsibility for vaccines for
immunization programs and Healthy Babies/Health Children programs
• program budgets transferred include:
Mandatory programs such as: general programs, tobacco, Hepatitis B,
children's dental, AIDS prevention and control, and sexual health
Optional programs such as: speech and audio, teaching health unit, dental
coach
• estimates based on 1997 Ministry base budget allocations to boards of health(based
closely on 1996 approved provincial funding)
• where boundary of public health unit includes more than one upper tier municipality,
costs were allocated to the upper tiers on a population basis
• outside GTA,numbers shown reflect the provincial share of public health costs
• within GTA,numbers shown reflect the provincial share of public health costs being
assumed by municipalities after GTA equalization adjusted for varying
municipal/provincial cost share formula
• province will continue to fund health units for the portion of costs they incur on
behalf of unorganized areas on an interim basis
Apportionment of Costs:
Proposed Service Improvement Act provisions (Schedule D, Section 8 of Bill 152 - 1st
Reading version):
• health unit costs would be shared between constituent municipalities based on local
agreement;in the absence of a local agreement,cost sharing would be determined by
regulation
18
REGION OF DURHAM
Public Health $7.42 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
The following data will assist municipalities with options on how upper tier program costs could
be apportioned between the upper tier municipality and separated municipality(s) and among the
lower tier municipalities within the upper tier.
Municipality
Assessment* 1995 Population
$ #
Region of Durham
City of Oshawa 127,813
Town of Ajax 58,854
Town of Clarington 53,842
Town of Pickering 70,733
Town of Whitby 67,039
Township of Brock _ 10,991
Township of Scugog 17,880.
Township of Uxbridge 14,672..
TOTAL(excludes separated municipalities)! I 421,824
NOTE: Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
See last page for detailed assessment data
PUBLIC HEALTH
KEYDECISIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
Municipal Decisions:
• Municipalities within the jurisdiction of a public health board could come to a local
agreement on what portion of the board of health costs each municipality will be
responsible for.
Provincial Decisions:
• The way public health board costs are to be divided between municipalities, where
local agreements are not reached,would be set out in regulation.
• The linkage of governance for public health with proposed Consolidated Municipal
Services Management (CMSM) or Area Service Boards (ASB) has yet to be
determined.
• The mechanism for ongoing funding of public health in unorganized areas is another
area for future consideration.
20
PUBLIC HEALTH
Changing Responsibilities: P4tc Ht404
Roles and Responsibilities: Public Health
the province municipalities/boards of health
m
= establish local procedures and
'c sets minimum standards and p
o requirements for each mandatory protocols (Boards of Health-BOH)
CL program and service •
establish linkages with other local
a' agencies (BOH)
• establishes linkages with other
programs at the provincial level plan for new financial responsibility
(Municipality)
m
Q
monitors and enforces standards appoint(nominate board members
CD (Municipality)
• appoints board member where
2 appropriate and approve Medical establish annual budgets (BOH)
E Officer of Health appointments
N develop internal mechanisms to ensure
co
provide professional expertise and provincial standards are met(BOH)
c, consultation to boards of health
• create local governance policies,
• 100%funding of vaccines for procedures, reporting systems etc.
immunization programs and of (BOH)
Healthy Baby/Healthy Children
Program ensure that staff are trained and
qualified (BOH)
• allocate funds for service costs
(Municipality)
direct delivery of responsibility (BOH)
0
d
as
21
LAND AMBULANCE:
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• Only the responsibility for land ambulances will be transferred. As such, the
province will continue to fund air ambulance operations and central dispatch centres.
• The province will be providing the existing operators and municipalities with a two
year transition period to minimize disruption to service delivery. On January 1,
1998,with Ministry approval, Regional municipalities that are ready could choose
to take over the responsibility for contracting with and funding directly existing land
ambulance services. During the transition period, the province will continue to
contract for the delivery of land ambulance services in those regional municipalities
which have chosen not to do so, and in all other areas of the province. By January
1, 2000, all regions and other upper-tier municipalities will have to assume
responsibility for delivery, or contracting for, all land ambulance services.
• covers 172 licenced ambulance operators
• outside GTA,numbers released on August 6 are 1996/97 fiscal year budgets and only
include provincial amounts.
• for GTA,cost includes$3 8.1 M that Province spends in Metro adjusted for the$35M
that Metro contributes; costs are then equalized across the GTA
• currently allocated on the basis of where the licenced ambulance operators are
located(Ministry of Health is preparing detailed data on the location of calls)
• of the $200 million, $188.2 million is for operating costs including administration
and salaries for 172 operators. $12.6 million reflects vehicle capital reinvestment.
• numbers include costs of 72 spare vehicles that are used around the province
• Not captured in the$200 million are:
$13.6 million annually for a recent arbitration settlement for paramedics.
Province will pay retroactive awards.
dispatch costs to continue to be paid by the province
insurance costs for vehicles which are currently self-insured by the province
Apportionment of Costs:
Every upper tier municipality is responsible for paying all the costs associated with the
provision of land ambulance services in the municipality. It is also responsible for
apportioning such costs among, and collecting such costs from the local municipalities
within its borders.
Proposed Service Improvement Act provisions (Schedule A, Section 6.9 of Bill 152 - 1st
Reading version):
• Where a delivery agent provides services for a designated area that does not form
part of an upper-tier municipality,regulations would set out how the costs associated
with the provision of land ambulance services in that area are to be apportioned
among local municipalities and/or territories without municipal organization.
22
REGION OF DURHAM
Land Ambulances $7.59 million **
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
The following data will assist municipalities with options on how upper tier program costs could
be apportioned between the upper tier municipality and separated municipality(s)and among the
lower tier municipalities within the upper tier.
Municipality Assessment* 1995 Population
Region of Durham
City of Oshawa 127,813
Town of Ajax 58,854
Town of Clarington 53,842
Town of Pickering 70,733
Town of Whitby— 67,039
Township of Brock
Township of Scu�og _ 17,880
Township of Uxbridge 14,672
_TOTAL liexcludes separated municipalities 421,824
NOTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
See last page for detailed assessment data
""Although some upper tier show no costs,all municipalities will share the cost of Land Ambulance Services. Updated
information will be provided shortly.
LAND AMBULANCE
KEY DECISIONS FOR LAND AMBULANCE
Municipal Decisions:
• Municipalities within each geographic upper tier or northern district are encouraged
to form agreements amongst themselves on issues relating to delivery and cost
sharing for land ambulance services(including transition cost sharing arrangements)
• Preparation for actual takeover in 2 years
• Regional municipalities may request taking over contracts in interim
Provincial Decisions:
• Delivery and funding provisions for land ambulance services will be set out by
regulation for areas where local agreements are not reached.
• The interim billing framework will be determined with the help of advice of the
WDW Implementation Teams.
24
LAND AMBULANCE
Changing Roles: LA4--*t A
Roles and Responsibilities: Land Ambulance
the province municipalities
= plan for funding and service delivery
integrates land ambulance service ry
ea with all other health care initiatives
a e.g., rural health and hospital review contracts
restructuring •
consult with neighboring municipalities
w legislates, sets standards, establishes
C guidelines, protocols and best
practices
c
as
E ensure the provision of land develop methods for cost sharing
IM ambulance services within the
Rprovincial emergency health services consult with province
2 system
E
• licencing of services and staff
a
Cn
m
Q
full responsibility for funding delivery
> and accountability
z
o _
ensure essential linkages with clients,
customers and service providers
m
w public and client education
• insurance and risk management
25
SOCIAL HOUSING
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• The Provincial social housing costs are an estimate for the 1997/98 fiscal period,
based on current budgets or the best available data at the time of the analysis.
• The Federal subsidies will continue to be paid by the Federal government. Federal
subsidy data was not provided in the August 6 numbers release.
• Upper tier social housing costs include separated municipalities however, the intent
is to send separate bills to separated municipalities.
• Social housing costs are actuals except in the GTA where the costs are equalized.
• Data is based on the best available information at the time of the analysis. The
following factors could impact on the amounts billed:
• implementation of changes to achieve program reforms, including
recommendations of the Advisory Council on Social Housing Reform
• future mortgage rate renewals for projects in each upper tier
• changes to the tax and assessment system
• Capital replacement costs are included in the social housing costs:
• a total of$110 million provincially per year for OHC
• a total of$30 million provincially per year for non-profits
• Ministry administration costs are included in OHC costs but are not included in non-
profit program costs.
• Prior to the transfer of funding responsibilityto municipalities,the province will have
invested(on a one-time basis)$215 million earmarked for the repair and upgrade of
social housing. Non-profit and co-operative housing sponsors will receive a$173
million boost to their capital reserve funds. The balance of the funding,$42 million,
is targeted for Ontario Housing Corporation capital repairs and upgrades. These
funds are in addition to the amounts previously spent to maintain the social housing
stock.
• The Province will retain responsibility for funding close-out costs related to the
cancellation of 395 non-profit housing projects.
Apportionment of Costs:
Proposed Service Improvement Act provisions(Schedule F, Sections 7 and 10 of Bill 152 -
1 st Reading version):
• costs would be allocated to regions, counties, district municipalities, separated
municipalities,District Social Service Administration Boards and prescribed boards
with social service responsibilities by regulation
• in the absence of a regulation to the contrary, the upper tier costs for social housing
would be included in the general upper tier levy or,with the approval of all lower tier
councils,upper tier municipalities could set a special levy with different tax rates for
affected lower-tier municipalities by by-law.
26
REGION OF DURHAM
Social Housing $40.76 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
The following data will assist municipalities with options on how upper tier program costs could
be apportioned between the upper tier municipality and separated municipality(s)and among the
lower tier municipalities within the upper tier.
Municipality Assessment* 1995 Population
Region of Durham --------�—� — -� ----
C of Oshawa - --- __-_ -- 127,813
Town of Ajax 58,854
Town of Clarington 53,842;.
Town of Pickering 70,733:
Town of Whitby 67,039:
'Township of Brock 10,991
Township of Scugog 17,880
.Township of Uxbridge 14,672.
TOTAL excludes separated
municipalities) _ 421,824
NOTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
See last page for detailed assessment data
kill • • ° W
[October 6th 1997 lower tier unit and subsidy information release]
NAME of UPPER TIER: Durham Type: Region SGC Code: 18
Lower Tier Municipalities/Areas: Ajax,M;Brock,(TWP);Clarington,(T);Oshawa,(C) ;Pickering,(T);Scugog 34,(R);Scugog,(f VVP);
Uxbridge,(TWP);Whitby,(T);
MUNICIPALITY UNITS SUBSIDIES
TOTAL RGI MARKET TOTAL PROVINCIAL FEDERAL
Durham 7)587 4,943 2,644 $49,837,062 $33,820,482 $16,016,581
Ajax M 1,030 690 r 340 $8,567,585 $5,813,900 1 $2,753,685
Brock [TWP] 130 90T----40-1 $265,246 $146 436
$118,810
Clarington [T] 1,362 772 590 $10
,404,543 $7,244,347 $3,160,196
Oshawa [C] 3,057 1,924 1,133 $17,179,542 $10,802,328 $6,377,213
Pickering (i1 $2,623,112
530 382 148 $4,021;595 $1,398,483
Scugog [TWP] X81 150 31 $845,257 $617,591 $227666
Uxbridge [TWP] 91 51 40� $234,303 $63,723
$170,580
Whitby [T] ----
1,206 1 884 322 $8,318,992 $6,509,045 $1,809,947
Non-Profit&Market Housing Program Development Section,MMAH
Printed: Monday, October 6, 1997, 09:47 AM
Page 6 of 49
SOCIAL HOUSING
KEYDECISIONS FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
Municipal Decisions:
• If upper tier and lower tier municipalities agree, a cost-sharing formula other than
that based on property assessment could be put in place, subject to the regulations
Provincial Decisions:
• Review the recommendationsof the Social Housing Advisory Council and undertake
reform of the social housing programs
• Review the opportunities for social housing to be incorporated in the consolidated
service delivery model proposed by MCSS
• The Province could set regulations governing apportionment of upper tier costs to
lower tier municipalities.
• The interim billing framework will be determined with the help of advice from the
WDW implementation teams.
28
SOCIAL HOUSING
Changing Responsibilities: 50,e. d HV"4-J
Roles and Responsibilities: Social Housing 1998
the province municipalities
• consult with municipalities and consult with province and stakeholders
R stakeholders on devolution process on devolution process
a
a�
::
L
rr
_
d
transition planning plan for the devolution of social housing
responsibility
C manage current programs pending
devolution of system management plan for apportionment of costs in 1998
E responsibilities
N
y
m
v
m
manage billing process provide 100% of social housing funding
o manage current programs in
conjunction with current service
Z providers
m
29
CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES (CAS)
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• Child Welfare is a part of a larger system of services which is currently 80%
provincially funded and 20%municipally funded.
• The Province will assume full responsibility for Children's Aid Societies as of
January 1, 1998.
• The data are based on 1996 estimated municipal subsidies as submitted by agencies
and Area Offices.
• More accurate data on a lower tier basis are being compiled by agencies and Area
Offices.
30
REGION OF DURHAM
Children's Aid Societies ($2.56) million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
The following data will assist municipalities with options on how upper tier program costs could
be apportioned between the upper tier municipality and separated municipality(s)and among the
lower tier municipalities within the upper tier.
1997 Municipal
Municipality Assessment* 1995 Population : Contribution **
_ $ # __
Region of Durham
of Oshawa 127,813 _
Town of A,iax 58,854
Town of Claringtton
53,842'! -
Tow_n_of Pickerin
--- ---—-
-— 70,733 :
Town of Whitby _ 67,039 '
Township of Brock 10,991 : -
Township of Scugog
17,880 : --
Township of Uxbridge
14,672:
_ TOTAL excludes separated municipalities) 421,8241 l
NOTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data. – — -
See last page for detailed assessment data
"Detail data being collected. Municipalities may insert their 1997 contribution to Children's Aid Societies.
GO TRANSIT
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• GO Transit costs will be assumed by GTA regional municipalities, the new City of
Toronto and Hamilton-Wentworth region. The rest of the province is unaffected.
• Capital and operating costs(using 1996/97 fiscal year subsidies data) were allocated
to the GTA upper tier municipalities, the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the
new City of Toronto based on where riders boarded the GO Transit system in the
morning(i.e. a.m. boardings)
• This option was used for illustrative purposes only and is only one among a range of
cost allocation formulas now under review by the province in consultationwith upper
tier municipalities.
• The province will continue to provide funds to GO,Transit in the amounts necessary
to enable GO to satisfy the financial obligations of the sale and saleback agreement,
related to the rail fleet. GO Transit will be responsible for the costs of the
maintenance and capital refurbishment of the rail fleet.
Apportionment of Costs:
Proposed Services Improvement Act provisions (Schedule E, Sections 8.(3) and 8.3 of Bill
152 - 1 st Reading version):
• costs would be allocated to the Regional municipalities of Durham, Halton,
Hamilton-Wentworth,Peel and York,and to the City of Toronto by a formula set in
regulation
• in the absence of a regulation to the contrary, regional municipalities would be
included in the general upper tier levy or,with the approval of all lower tier councils,
municipalities could set a special levy with different tax rates for affected lower-tier
municipalities by by-law
32
REGION OF DURHAM
GO Transit $21.67 million **
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
The following data will assist municipalities with options on how upper tier program costs could
be apportioned between the upper tier municipality and separated municipality(s)and among the
lower tier municipalities within the upper tier.
Municipality Assessment* 1995 Population
City of Oshawa ---------_-__-_ __ --_-- _ --- _-127,813
Town of Ajax_ _ -- 58 854
'-- -
Town of Clarington _ 53,842
:Town of Pickering 70,733
Town of Whitby 67,039
Township of Brock— - _ _ _ _ 10,991
Township of Scugog._ - 17,880
Township of Uxbridge
14,672.
TOTAL(excludes separated municipalities)_ 421,824
NOTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data. —
See last page for detailed assessment data
"Amount is based on one method of allocating GO Transit costs. The methodology for allocating GO Transit costs has
been discussed with affected regions and a decision will be made shortly.
GO TRANSIT
KEYDECISIONS FOR GO TRANSIT
Municipal Decisions:
• If upper tier and lower tier municipalities agree, a cost-sharing formula other than
that based on property assessment could be put in place, subject to the regulations
Provincial Decisions:
• The methodology for allocating costs between the Regions serviced and the new City
of Toronto will be set by regulation (eg. based on traffic origin/destination,
assessment, population or other method). The Ministry of Transportation is
consulting on with Regional municipalities, and the Provincial-Municipal
Implementation Team will have the opportunity to provide advice on this issue.
• The interim billing framework will be determined in consultation with the GTA
upper tier municipalities, Hamilton-Wentworth and the WDW implementation
teams.
• The governance linkage with the proposed Greater Toronto Services Board has yet
to be determined.
34
GO TRANSIT
Changing Responsibilities: q0T4A4--,a
Roles and Responsibilities: GO Transit
the province municipalities-GTSB
as
• devolution of strategic planning plan for interregional transit provision in
functions possibly to a GTSB. the GTA and Hamilton-Wentworth
LL
a continued interest in major changes
in GO Transit service levels, and the
w corresponding traffic impacts on the
U) adjacent provincial highway system
m
E no provincial role A GTSB could assume responsibility for
service system management.
ca
2
E
w
y
d
v
d
2,
• no provincial role direct and full service delivery and
Z financing responsibilities possibly
through a GTSB.
m
35
MUNICIPAL TRANSIT
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• Municipalities will assume responsibility for transit funding; costs assigned only to
those municipalities that received grants
• operating costs allocated based on 1996/97 fiscal year provincial operating subsidy
• capital costs allocated based on annualized historical five-year capital subsidy
requirements (to level out the uneven nature of annual transit capital funding)
• annual TTC capital subsidy is excluded as a five-year agreement is in place between
the province, TTC and Metro to fund capital programs ($915M) and complete the
Sheppard subway ($511M)
• the province will fulfill contractual capital funding obligations of financial assistance
to purchase 800 new buses for transit systems across the province
36
REGION OF DURHAM
Municipal Transit - Operating and Capital $5.38 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
Annualized
Capital and
Municipality Operating Needs:;
Region of Durham 0:
:City of Oshawa 1,844,186
Town of Ajax 1,154,413:1
..Town of Clanngton 42,58311
Town of Pickering 1,389,269'(
Town of Whitby 905,687:
Township of Brock 0
Township of Scugog 41,142':
Township of Uxbridge_ 0
i
:i
ii
i
;I
TOTAL(excludes separated municipalities)
5,377,280.
NOTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
MUNICIPAL TRANSIT
KEYDECISIONS FOR MUNICIPAL TRANSIT
Municipal Decisions:
• Municipalities can pursue opportunities for cost savings and revenue generation in
municipal transit operations
• Municipalities can pursue opportunities for transit coordination and integration with
adjacent municipalities
• Municipalities can seek greater coordination between transit and community
transportation services such as school, health and social services-related
transportation
• Municipalities may want to build a role for stakeholder groups such as the
Canadian/Ontario Urban Transit Association on transit restructuring issues
Provincial Decisions:
• Potential Municipal Capital and Operating Restructuring Fund allocation criteria for
the transportation capital component covering transit, ferries and municipal airports
($200 M) will be reviewed by a work group reporting to the Provincial-Municipal
Implementation Team (PMIT). PMIT will have the opportunity to provide advice
to the Government on this issue.
38
MUNICIPAL TRANSIT
Changing Responsibilities: M T444-.44
Roles and Responsibilities: Municipal Transit
the province municipalities
as
_ Ongoing commitment to safety, Plan for the coordination of Ontario's
cc
outstanding contractual obligations, municipal transit systems.
(L and a future role in analyzing
transition funding allocation Forecast for future service and
d proposals. financing needs.
R
L
w
d
£ The ministry is evaluating the need for
4) Plan for delivery and financing of local
0 province-wide accessibility standards
Cand a future provincial role in transit and inter-regional transit systems.
2 integration and intermodal
development
N
A
d
U
d
• No provincial role Direct and full service delivery and
p funding responsibility
d
U
d
39
SEPTIC SYSTEMS INSPECTIONS
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• the responsibility for regulating on-site septic systems in the Environmental
Protection Act would be incorporated into the Building Code Act, streamlining
service through a one-window approach to home owners and builders
• municipalities would be responsible for the approval and inspections of on-site
systems and would assume associated costs
• costs based on subsidies to Ministry of Environment and Energy agents in fiscal
1995-96
• allocated to upper tier municipalities
• where Ministry of Environment and Energy agent covered more than one upper tier
municipality, subsidy was prorated based on population (actual caseload data
available locally)
• municipal ability to charge user fees to recover costs
• costs for septics inspections will be transferred when program responsibilities are
transferred(likely March 1998)
• estimates of$5 million in subsidy and$5 million in permit fees
• delivery models remain with boards of health in northern Ontario until governance
decisions are made
40
i
REGION OF DURHAM
Septic Systems Inspections $0.19 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
The following data will assist municipalities with options on how upper tier program costs could
be apportioned between the upper tier municipality and separated municipality(s) and among the
lower tier municipalities within the upper tier.
Municipality P tY Assessment 1995 Population
Region_of_Durham - — —_ ---
City of Oshawa —_ _ ---- - -- 127,813
Town of Ajax - 58,854
Town of Clarington 53,842
;Town of Pickering 70,733
;Town of Whitby 67,039
Township of Brock 10,991
Township of Scugog 17,880_
Township of Uxbridge I 14,672
I
TOTAL(excludes separated municipalities) i 421.82.4
NOTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
See last page for detailed assessment data
SEPTIC SYSTEMS INSPECTIONS
KEYDECISIONS FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS INSPECTIONS
Municipal Decisions:
• Municipalities in the south will determine how septics inspections and approvals will
be delivered (eg. Direct or joint municipal delivery, agreements with upper tier
municipalities,public health units or conservation authorities).
• Municipalities may want to consider full cost recovery in calculating user fees.
Provincial Decisions:
• The Province will set the septics standards to be incorporated into the Ontario
Building Code
42
SEPTIC SYSTEMS INSPECTIONS
,
Changing Responsibilities: s"
Roles and Responsibilities: Septic Systems
the province municipalities
= determine the appropriate se t�
'_ creates regulatory framework which p cs delivery
R ensures appropriate standards related to mechanism in their jurisdiction;
a public health and environmental
protection; determine who should be certified as a
m septic inspector;
R
L
V
W
sets standards for the construction, •
m provide one-window service to the
a£i operation and maintenance of septic development industry and the public;
4 systems;
c provide cost-effective inspection and
establishes qualifications for septic approval services
inspectors;
E ensure that staff are qualified
• develops curriculum and exam standards;
set appropriate fee structure
develops the administrative framework
for ensuring that inspectors become develop agreements with upper tiers, public
rn certified; health units or conservation authorities and
or staff from these bodies to enforce septic
• establishes appeal mechanisms for standards
resolving disputes related to
interpretation of the Building Code,
suspensions/revocations of
certifications,the use of new
technologies, etc.;
• develops requirements for dealing with
transitional matters
assigns septics standards enforcement enforce the provisions of the Building Code
responsibilities to public health units and Act and the Building Code;
conservation authorities in municipalities
w
> and unorganized territories in the North. address complaints related to septic
msystems;
• impose terms and conditions related to the
proper operation and maintenance of septic
systems.
43
PROVINCIAL OFFENCES NET REVENUES
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• Revenue under Provincial Offences Act,Part I (minor ticketed offences) and Part III
(regulatory offences/court appearances)net of costs of administration,court support,
facilities,adjudicationand prosecution costs will be retainedby municipalitiestaking
on new POA responsibilities.
• net revenue estimates based on costs and projected revenue for the more than 50
court catchment service areas aggregated to obtain upper tier level information
• gross revenue assumption of$100 M per year is the actual revenue for 1995-96 and
is also the average annual revenue over 5 years to 1995-96; it excludes dedicated
charges to be retained by the province for:
Victim Fine Surcharge
Game and Fish Act
• revenues based on actual receipts (not accrued)
• total costs estimate of$35 M annually based on 1995-96 actuals:
$13 M of costs remain with the Ministry of the Attorney General for
prosecution of Part III offences, adjudication costs for justices of the peace
and monitoring standard compliance
$22 M municipalities will assume to prosecute Part I offences and for court
administration/support and facilities
• some system costs pro-rated across all court locations
• existing service levels are maintained; "as is" transfer means users should see no
change in service provision
• municipalities would start this activity and receive the revenues upon transfer and
signing of memoranda of understanding,and these transfers would be phased in over
a two year period commencing early 1998
Apportionment of Costs:
POA revenues and costs would be shared among municipalities by agreement and set out in
a memorandum of understanding between the Province and municipalities.
44
REGION OF DURHAM
Provincial Offences Net Revenues ($1.66) million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
The following data will assist municipalities with options on how upper tier program costs could
be apportioned between the upper tier municipality and separated municipality(s) and among the
lower tier municipalities within the upper tier.
Projected
Revenue Net of
Municipality Assessment* 1995 Population Costs**
.Region of Durham 0
City of Oshawa 127,813' 1,910,000..
Town of Ajax 58,854' p
Town of Clarington 53,842' 0
Town of Pickering 70,733 0
Town of Whitby 67,039 0
Township of Brock 10,991 —p
Township of Scu og 17,880: __--
Township of Uxbridge 14,672 p-
i
i
.—TOTAL(excludes separated municipalities); 421,824' _ 1,910,000
NOTE:Some costs and revenues were prorated province-wide,so totals by court location may differ from upper tier total.
`See last page for detailed assessment data
"Amounts are shown opposite the municipalities where courts are located.
PROVINCIAL OFFENCES NET REVENUES
KEYDECISIONS FOR PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT TRANSFER
Municipal Decisions:
• Municipalities are to submit proposals following an invitation process.
• Local agreement on how costs and net fine revenues would be shared among
municipalities covered in a given court service area is proposed approach.
Provincial Decisions:
• Standard provisions would be set out in a generic memorandum of understanding
transfer documents.
46
Preliminary Reassessment Data
August 1997
Upper Tier: 1800 Durham R
Lower Tier: 1820 Scugog Tp
EXISTING PRELIMINARY
............ ................................ -------
..........
............... ...... ...................
..... . ... ..............
.................... . ... ................. ............ ......
--------------------------
....... ..... .
... .................... ... ..............
......... ......... .......... ......
.......... .. . . ........ . ....
..... ......... ...............
..............
............. .. ... ... .............................
............. ............
... ....... V.S.-i.s.m.
. .......................
.............
..........
...............
..................
::.::.:::.::.::.::.::.::::.:::::.:::.:<..........
I -Residential and Farm RT 22,815,257 1,087,926,803
2 -Multi-Residential MT 278,213 6,697,437
3 -Commercial CT 395,224 1,996,769 682,485 87,069,274
4 - Industrial IT 265,128 285,535 175,760 14,114,597
6 - Farmlands FT 3,127,628 104,795,921
7 - Managed.Forests TT 149,213 7,408,457
TOTAL 27.030.6631 2,282,3041 858,2451 1,308,012,489
The assessment data in this table shows the preliminary total property assessment by class based on a statistical sample. This data cannot be used to
estimate hnvj taxes on a particular property might change.
Staff from the Regional Assessment Offices are available to help municipalities interpret this data.
Computer applications are being developed to model various options introduced in recent legislation. Municipalities are invited to identify their software needs
and provide suggestions and recommendations.
Preliminary Reassessment Data
August 1997
Upper Tier: 1800 Durham R
Lower Tier: 1829 Uxbridge Tp
EXISTING PRELIMINARY
............::.::
= ;
::..�...:..:::.....::......::.:::::. Neva
Tax......... ........... . ::::.;::;::.:::::<:;.::.:;:: : ::..>:::.:::..;:::.::::.
:::.:::.:::::::::::............... ......::. .. ._................ Rsrde
::..: m .r.Gtat....................... ... s�.rt�.s$... s. ..........
::: <: ::>::: -
1 - Residential and Farm RT 21,914,758 1,055,658,590
2 - Multi-Residential MT 555,682 13,094,302
3 -Commercial CT 371,397 1,838,477 645 990 83,566,082
4- Industrial IT 447,954 474,049 287,060 19,303,964
6- Farmlands FT 2,382,725 96 008 985
7- Managed Forests I TT 11 221,7251 10 924167
OTAL 25:,894,241 2,312,526 933 050 1,278,556,0901
The assessment data in this table shows the preliminary total property assessment by class based on a statistical sample. This data cannot be used to
estimate how taxes on a particular property might change.
Staff from the Regional Assessment Offices are available to help municipalities interpret this data.
Computer applications are being developed to model various options introduced in recent legislation. Municipalities are invited to identify their software needs
and provide suggestions and recommendations.
Preliminary Reassessment Data
August 1997
Upper Tier: 1800 Durham R
Lower Tier: 1817 Clarington T
EXISTING PRELIMINARY
......................... .......
........ ................
. . ........ ....... .... .....................
.....................
. .......... .. .......
...... .... ....
g
00...............
................. --------
.............. ----------
..........
............. ...arum rc.
..........
.... ..................................
................... ....0'.5.5men
-p- RM
-5.5 In
1 -Residential and Farm RT 61,183,824 2,869,085,20-0-
2 -Multi-Residential MT 1,204,264 22,199,574
3 -Commercial CT 918,509 4,500,663 1,608,385 170,778,603
4 - Industrial IT 607,193 3,230,531 1,933,400 67,999,880
6 - Farmlands FT 3,037,016 135,554,775
7 - Managed Forests TT 107 534 F 5,058347
67,058,3401 3,541,785 3,270 676.379
,VOTAL 7731,1941
The assessment data in this table shows the preliminary total property assessment by class based on a statistical sample. This data cannot be used to
estimate how taxes on a particular property might change.
Staff from the Regional Assessment Offices are available to help municipalities interpret this data.
Computer applications are being developed to model various options introduced In recent legislation. Municipalities are invited to identify their software needs
and provide suggestions and recommendations.
Preliminary Reassessment Data
August 1997
Upper Tier: 1800 Durham R
Lower Tier: 1813 Oshawa C (18130 Oshawa C)
EXISTING PRELIMINARY
--------------
... ........ .....
.............
...........................
....... ....... .
..... ..............................
...... ...
.........
............
.. .........
KT -ko
......................
...........
........... . ...........
..........
......... ........
1 - Residential and Farm RT 278,335,900 41274,930,873
2 - Multi-Residential MT 55,661,515 412,171,928
3 - Commercial CT 14,201,970 68,526,023 26,004,690 810,367,187
Industrial IT 7,502,8141 91,247,5451 54 673 810 738,369,465
1— F 159 773 –
rOTAL 355,702 99, , ,568 -80,6713.500]F 6,235,839,453
The assessment data in this table shows the preliminary total property assessment by class based on a statistical sample. This data cannot be used to
estimate how taxes on a particular property might change.
Staff from the Regional Assessment offices are available to help municipalities interpret this data.
Computer applications are being developed to model various options introduced in recent legislation. Municipalities are invited to identify their software needs
and provide suggestions and recommendations.
Preliminary Reassessment Data
August 1997
Upper Tier: 1800 Durham R
Lower Tier: 1813 Oshawa C (1813E Oshawa C)
EXISTING PRELIMINARY
...................................................... --- -------
----- ...... .. .. ..
............... .
...............
...............
..................................
...... KK
....... ...... ........... ...
...... .............
. .......
......................
... ..........
. ... .....
. . .......
............
....................................
. ............... ........... ..... ... ........... . ..... ..
.............. .. ........
...........
............
1 -Residential and Farm RT 31,736,292 773,093,704
2-Multi-Residential FAT 182,760 1,957,000
3-Commercial CT 160,967 1,103,070 351,235 26,840,563
'5
4-Industrial IT 52,600 166,515 99,905 5,888,622
6- Farmlands FT 1,202,095 37,596,064
7 -Managed Forests I TT 4,6851 133,389
TOTAL 33,3397399 F 1,269,585 f 451,1401[ 845 509 342
The assessment data in this table shows the preliminary total property assessment by class based on a statistical sample. This data cannot be used to
estimate how taxes on a particular property might change.
Staff from the Regional Assessment Offices are available to help municipalities Interpret this data.
Computer applications are being developed to model various options Introduced In recent legislation. Municipalities are Invited to Identify their software needs
and provide suggestions and recommendations.
i3 i
Preliminary Reassessment Data
August 1997
Upper Tier: 1800 Durham R
Lower Tier: 1813 Oshawa C
EXISTING PRELIMINARY
'A
........ ..... �**- ----------
.... ...............
............
...41M
... ........
..... . ... ....
............. ... ............. -
............ ... .... ............
..............
... ........
S
.............. ... ...
n .................
................ E -
1 - Residential and Farm RT 310,072,192 5,048,024,577
12 - Multi-Residential MT 55,844,275 414,128,928
3 -Commercial CT 14,362,937 69,629,093 26,355,925 837,207,750
4 - Industrial IT 7,555,414 91,414,060 54,773,715 744,258,087
6 - Farmlands FT 1,202,095 37,596,064
7 -Managed Forests TT 4,685 I 133,389
[TOTAL L 389,041.5981 161 043,1531 81,1209640 7,081,348,795
The assessment data in this table shows the preliminary total property assessment by class based on a statistical sample. This data cannot be used to
estimate how taxes on a particular property might change.
Staff from the Regional Assessment Offices are available to help municipalities Interpret this data.
Computer applications are being developed to model various options introduced in recent legislation. Municipalities are invited to Identify their software needs
and provide suggestions and recommendations.
Preliminary Reassessment Data
August 1907
Upper Tier: 1800 Durham R
Lower Tier: 1809 Whitby T
EXISTING PRELIMINARY
.. .......
. ................
....... ..... .....
...................
...................... ....... ----
.... .....
N d. tti .. ......... -----
-------- ..
..... ....... ..
1 -Residential and Farm RT 124,567,476 3,470,538,241
2 -Multi-Residential IVIT 9,582,000 120,560,893
3 -Commercial CT 2770,390 18,268,680 7,267,560 461,074,128
4- Industrial IT 1,758,670 8,384,440 4,951,280 186,553,914
6 - Farmlands FT 958335 24,838,534
7- Manaqgd Forests TT 1,1251 31,382
TOTAL 139,637,995 F 26 653120 12,218,840 4,263,59:7 0=92]
The assessment data in this table shows the preliminary total property assessment by class based on a statistical sample. This data cannot be used to
===estimate how taxes on a particular property might change.
Staiff from the Regional Assessment Offices are available to help municipalities Interpret this data.
domputer applications are being developed to model various options Introduced in recent legislation. Municipalities are invited to Identify their software needs
and provide suggestions and recommendations.
I
Preliminary Reassessment Data
i
August 1997
Upper Tier: 1800 Durham R
Lower Tier:
EXISTING PRELIMINARY
Ne -
' - - _'__ '--::-_��:?�:it:?'�'�:�::-:::'::'i-i:'--.iv�::i:::t:::-:i:i::'�:::-:�:::::::::':.-.-....:-i'!?:::i�::�:::i::r:'-':i:-:'..::�:::......::...:::::::�:�:::::-_:�-'.:.::::
::is�-.:i:.:is v-?:::::::=::?ji'::'=:=iiii:-i::i::i i:::::�:{::::i:?!::�J::S:::F::::is:::i::i::�i•-:::i:-:?:i:-ii::i::::tiY:::-:::i�::::iii:::i:
::i::::i::.'is.'.:viii:ii::ii: ::. ...:.:i:'i"viii;:;:;:;-.,',..::.i+::::i-iii:::::�::i:::::ij:::i:::::J::::iiii?�:::::::::::: :::?i:: :•.::i.....-..
' •i:v'• is O - _ _
::ii ::::::::
......... .. ........................ .:.................- ----...---... ............................-----.... ...------_.......................................... ............�a�.mm�r.
..----.............._. ._��s.n�s�.----........... ..............�s�essrr.��r��:-:>:::::::::::
>: <:i::<::<::«<:i>:
<c - _-
a s................::.......::.::::::::::....::::Gass::::. ii:.:As :.::::::._..:::.:::::: ::.::::::::::::.:_:::_
::.:; .sessmarX>� Assessment
1 - Residential and Farm RT 1,634,819,604 21 546 739 287
2 - Multi-Residential MT 106 735 866 699 016 905
3 -Commercial CT 40,517,196 248,009,426 97,200,800 2,557,672,998
4 - Industrial IT 31 980161 155,638,264 92,502,535 1,325,676,102
6 - Farmlands FT 22,998,277 516,550,551
7 - Managed Forests I TT 572156 iF - 24 858 801
TOTAL 1 837 623 260 403,647,690 189,703,33511 26 670 514 644
The assessment data in this table shows the preliminary total property assessment by class based on a statistical sample. This data cannot be used to
estimate how taxes on a particular property might change.
Staff from the Regional Assessment Offices are available to help municipalities interpret this data.
Computer applications are being developed to model various options introduced in recent legislation. Municipaities are invited to identify their software needs
and provide suggestions and recommendations.
I
REGION OF DURHAM
Preliminary Reassessment Data
Unweighted preliminary reassessment data are based on the data released August 6,1997, with some revisions.
They remain preliminary
" For unweighted preliminary reassessment data for individual property classes, see attached.
x*x Weighted preliminary reassessment data assume that post-WDW relative effective municipal tax rates on different
property classes within tax-ratio-setting jurisdictions are not changed from their pre-assessment-reform levels (except in
the cases of managed forests and farmlands). The weighting methodology is preliminary
Should upper tier or single tier municipalities use their tax ratio setting powers to move toward a fairer distribution
of tax, the appropriate measure of weighted assessment could change.
Unweighted Total Weighted Total �I
i Preliminary Preliminary
Reassessment Data 1 Reassessment Data
Municipality (***) (* *** ****)
!Region rh
of Duam �� -- 1
City of Oshawa 7,081,348,795, 8,626,395,03511
Town of Ajax 3,726,110,768 4,090,089,704
Town of Clarin ton 3,270,676,379 3,326,569,586
Town of Pickering 5,041,875,585 5,410,454,112;1
Town of Whitby - - --- - -- - -- 4 263 597 092 4,748,285,3411
Township of Brock _ _ 7001337,4461 _ 668,663,453
,Township of Scugog 1,308,012,4891 1,278,304,13-
.Township of Uxbridge _ _ _ --_� 1,278,556,090; 1,264,109,942:1
1
— _
it
I'
- i
1 ,
� I
I
j- — -- TOTAL(excludes separated municipalities) 26,670,514,6441i 29,412,871,3051;
REGION OF DURHAM
Gross Receipts Taxes (GRT) $3.40 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
Municipal Portiorn
Municipality of GIRT
Region of Durham 01
:City of Oshawa 1,327,469;;
Town of Ajax 430,5511
Town of Clarington 336,5381,
Town of Piqkerinq_ 469,27811
-—
'Town of Whitby 492,778ill
'Tqwns�iof Brock 100,82811,
Township of Scuqoq 137,763i:
Township of Uxbridge 101,01511
TOTAL(excludes separated municipalities) 3,396,220i1
NOTE:Detaii information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
PROVINCIAL OFFENCES NET REVENUES
Changing Responsibilities: PWW- � {,.���
Roles and Responsibilities: Provincial Offences
the province municipalities
• develops and monitors justice operational planning/program
program standards development
a
establishes policy and monitoring to
•m
ensure MOU requirements are met
L
w+
w
_
m
E establishes partnerships and builds capacity for transfer of
mentoring relationships responsibilities
2 delivers training for new service
• establishes relationships with
m providers on legislation, program stakeholders
N delivery and standards
co implements new technology processes
transition planning
2 ensures that justice program standards
rn ensures transfer of equipment, are met
operational, administrative and
financial processes implements and complies with POA
procedures
• supports training for municipal staff
• designates management staff
• manages program transfer to ensure manage program implementation to
o continuous quality service delivery ensure continuous service delivery
m
• establishes Review Committee to provide quality services during
monitor service delivery implementation period and beyond
• Review Committee reports to the
Attorney General
47
LIBRARIES
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• The province currently supports libraries through per household grants.
Responsibility for funding libraries will be transferred to municipalities.
• The estimates are based on actual 1997 grants plus actual 1996/97 pay equity
payments(figures provided for each library board and contracting municipalities) -
pay equity amounts are approximately $2 million
• Province continues to provide operating grant to Metro Reference Library because
of its continued Provincial role
• Province continues to administer the Public Libraries Act; Provincial interest is in
interconnectivity of the library system as a whole (eg. Technology, inter-library
loans); Province continues to fund the Ontario Library Service agencies, the Metro
Reference Library and a moderate investment fund of approximately $400,000 per
year
48
REGION OF DURHAM
Libraries $0.73 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
1997 Library
Municipality Grant
Region of Durham
Ci�y of Oshawa 0;
217,336::Town o Ajax 150,623,:
Town of Clarington 73,556-..,r:,
Town of Pickering 101,44-9
Town of Whitby 96,945;!.
Township of Brock 20,172
.Township of Scugo
51,251
Township of Uxbridge
22,72Z!
TOTAL(excludes separated municipalities): 734,658;
NOTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
Data shown is currently under review.
LIBRARIES
KEY DECISIONS FOR LIBRARIES
Municipal Decisions:
• Councils appoint library board members at the first or second regular meeting of
council.
• Before they appoint new board members, councils elected in the fall of 1997 in
municipalities with public libraries (including amalgamated or restructured
municipalities)would be required to pass a by-law establishing:
- the size and composition of the board(minimum 3 members);
- the qualifications of board members;
- the rules regarding reappointment;
- the procedures for filling board vacancies;
- the circumstances under which a board member's seat becomes vacant or a
member becomes disqualified as sitting as a member;
- when and how the first meeting of a board in a new term is to be called; and
- the rules regarding the reimbursement, if any, of board members for
travelling and other expenses incurred in carrying out their duties as board
members.
(Some libraries have already drafted by-laws for consideration by councils. These
draft by-laws are available at www.library.on.ca under Professional
Information/Administration/By-laws)
• Amalgamating or restructuring municipalities should review their Minister's order
for references to public library services and library boards for special requirements
50
LIBRARIES
Changing Responsibilities: W4AIJnPiL
Roles and Responsibilities: Libraries
the province municipalities
• provides the legislative and policy planning for appropriate services and
framework for services, governance service levels
IL and user fees
line-by-line budget approval of funding
promotes inter-library cooperation for service priorities established by the
L library board
V) sets terms and conditions for the
Library Strategic Development Fund
and funding for the province-wide
network
d
develops and coordinates the library board develops policies to
provincial library network provide services according to local
= priorities
ca
2
E municipalities determine service
H provider(e.g. upper/lower-tier)
a
m
t
m
r
_> funds and directs provincial library establish a library board
d agencies for network coordination,
C
training, and resource sharing fund services
m
CO
51
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT COSTS:
Background to the Financial Data Released August 6:
• The responsibility for property assessment will be returned to municipalities
following assessment reform
• the cost to the Property Assessment Division of delivering assessment services is
about $101.2 million -- based on 1997 costs and includes salary awards made in
1995
• net cost to the province is closer to $120.8 million when property leases and
corporate services are included
• providing assessment services through an organization other than the province would
cost closer to $123 million due to additional property tax and Goods and Services
Tax(GST)payable by a non-provincial entity
• costs were allocated across upper tiers based on combination of equalized assessment
and number of roll entriesother cost recoverable models are being considered in
consultation with the municipal sector
• cost of reassessment project not included in the figures as the province will pay these
costs
• potential savings could accrue from the elimination of the business occupancy tax
• province has agreed to pay for the administration and defence of appeals arising out
of the reassessment and appeals outstanding as of December 31, 1997
52
L
REGION OF DURHAM
Property Assessment Services Delivery $4.51 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
The following data will assist municipalities with options on how upper tier program costs could
be apportioned between the upper tier municipality and separated municipality(s) and among the
lower tier municipalities within the upper tier.
Number of Roll Property
Municipality Entries Assessment
:Region of Durham --
;,City of Oshawa 67,071 . 7,023,122,190::
Town of Ajax
28,111 ' 3,825,836,820-1
Town of Clanngton 30,840: 3,291,814,182 ,
Town of Pickering 36,023; 5,252,631,994;!
Town of Whitby 33,304: 4,379,475,970:.
.Township of Brock 8,577 777,442,281"
Township of Scugog 12,046: 1,315,834,359 '
Township of Uxbridge 10,105 1,238,830,549 :
i
---TOTAL(_excludes s_e_parated_munici_palities)i 988 344;:
NOTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT COSTS
KEY DECISIONS FOR ASSESSMENT SERVICES DELIVERY
Municipal Decisions:
• Once the legislation is in force, the assessment service delivery body will have to
negotiate with the Province on the details of the operational transfer,including issues
such as staff transfer,salaries,benefits,pensions,fixed assets transfer and databases.
Provincial Decisions:
• A work group has reported to PMIT on structure, governance, cost recovery
methodology and the scope of revenue generation opportunities of a new municipal
assessment corporation. PMIT will have the opportunity to provide advice to the
Government on these issues.
• An interim billing framework would need to be established for the transition period
before the municipal assessment service delivery entity is established.
54
rt
•
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT COSTS
Changing Responsibilities: .<zwl/ "
Roles and Responsibilities: Assessment Services
the province municipalities
• the province will continue to manage municipal sector will consult and
the legislative framework for the negotiate with province for a new
a municipal financial system municipally controlled service delivery
m
model
d
R
L
w
d
CD
system standards will be established the new delivery system will be
0 through negotiations with delivering managed within the municipal sector
body
m
N
Q
V
the province may be a consumer of new service delivery body will deliver
m
> certain assessment services or data. and fund assessment services
m
0
m
d
55
MANAGED FORESTS AND CONSERVATIONLANDS
REBATE
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
Under the Ontario Fair Assessment System,taxing eligible Managed Forest Lands at 25%
of the residential tax rate and exempting eligible Conservation Lands from property taxes
will put an end to the cumbersome process of the rebate program.
Estimates of the potential change in municipal revenues are based on 1997 Managed Forest
Rebate projections. Potential changes in school board revenues are not shown.
As there is no data base of Managed Forest and Conservation Land properties which outlines
their assessed value and new assessment values, an estimation was arrived at through the
following calculation and assumptions.
Actual impacts will be available when assessment rolls are returned
• Forest Resources Inventory-maps forest cover by landownership-used to calculate
the potential area affected by assessment change. Wetlands are included in this
inventory
1978 inventory of forested land was used as the current inventory is on an
OBM basemap which does not allow MNR to derive data on a township basis
no allowance made for forested area that does not meet the 10 acre minimum
and Canadian citizenship criteria
• Farm Woodlot Area from Assessment Data Base - used to calculate non-farm
forested area so as to avoid duplicating farm tax rebate program. Landowners can
apply to only one of the programs
all woodlots on farms are covered under the farm program
• Conservation Lands (ALVR database) - includes all Class 1-3 wetlands. This
information not available for northern Ontario
• Samples of Assessed Values of Residential and Farm rural properties - Regional
Assessment Offices provided information on a representative sample of similar rural
properties containing woodlots. The only difference in properties was the fact that
the farm properties were assessed based on farmer to farmer sales rather than the
residential properties which were assessed at market value. This difference on a per
acre basis was used to calculate the potential change in assessed value of woodlands
under residential classification in moving to the new system.
no allowance made for the fact that the entire property was used in the sample
not just the wooded portion
- no allowance made for waterfront portion which will continue to be assessed
at market value vs current use
• Of the.total $18.2 million impact, the municipal portion is approximately $7.2
million and the education portion is about$11.0 million
• municipal sector will be absorbing its share of$7.2 million and %2 of the education
portion($5.5 million) to total $12.7 million
• province will collect the provincial levy for education purposes less an amount
equivalent to '/2 of the education portion of the impact
56
REGION OF DURHAM
Managed Forests / Conservation Lands Rebate $1.09 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
Amount of
Municipality Rebate
Region of Durham 0;!
City of Oshawa _ 0!!
Town of Ajax 0'!
Town of Clarin tg on 377,306;!
Town of Pickerin 140,264l�
Town of Whitby - . _. -- ----01:
Township of Brock —__ _ _ -- 53,740
Township.of Scugog _ _— _ _ _ 425,15_8!;
Township of Uxbridge 129 114!
_-. _ ----------- ....— - --
�I
:j
-- TOTAL(excludes separated-municipalities) _ ---1,125,582!;
NOTE:Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
Amount shown excludes 50%of Education portion.
MANAGED FORESTS/CONSERVATION LANDS
REBATE
KEY DECISIONS FOR MANAGED FORESTS/CONSERVATION LANDS
REBATE
Municipal Decisions:
• Municipalities can appeal the managed forest/conservation lands designations of
individual properties determined to be eligible for reduced property tax
rates/property tax exemption, once designations are established.
58
FARM TAX REBATE
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• Under the Ontario Fair Assessment System,taxing eligible farmlands at 25% of
the residential tax rate will put an end to the cumbersome process of the rebate
program.
• Potential changes in school board revenues are not shown.
• figures estimate the potential impact of a tax rate for farmlands and outbuilding
class of 25% of the residential rate
• based on latest complete year data available for farm tax rebate paid to farmers -
1995 tax year payments(payment for 1996 not yet complete)totalled on upper
tier geographic basis.
• of the total $150 million farm tax rebate program,the municipal portion is
approximately$63 million and the education portion is about$87 million.
• municipal sector will be absorbing its share of$63 million and %2 of the education
portion($43.5 million)to total $106.5 million
• the lower tier figures are based on 50% of education costs, consistent with the
August 6 figures,but do not reflect the uniform education rate
• province stated that it will collect the provincial levy for education purposes less
an amount equivalent to 1/2 of the education portion of the rebate ($2.5B less
$43.5M)
• part of the impact will affect upper tier revenue rather than lower tier
59
REGION OF DURHAM
Farm Tax Rebate $4.87 million
(per data released on August 6, 1997)
Amount of
Municipality
Rebate
$
Region of Durham —0
City of Oshawa 269,766:!
Town 157,709"
Town of Clarington 1,159.810:::
Town of Pickering
215,435:11:
Town of Whitby 235,094"
Township of Brock 913,891 .:
Township of Scupq 1,083,026;i
Township of Uxbridge__
839,220
7:
TOTAL excludes separated municipalities) 4,873,962':
NOTE: Detail information may differ from August 06th amount due to updated data.
Amount shown excludes 50%of Education portion.
Preliminary Reassessment Data
August 1997
Upper Tier: 1800 Durham R
Lower Tier: 1839 Brock Tp
EXISTING PRELIMINARY
--
j fi: ::::::: ::::::: :::';-.::`::'::::�<•?:::':'::<:'::'==:`;: ... ....ass-es.�m� ..............e :�:::»::>::>::>:<:: ;
..�:::.�:::::.:�::.:;.::.::.;..::::::::::::.�.Data>:::.::.:::::.::.:::.;:.:::.::�:
1 - Residential and Farm RT 30,856,615 5621669,094
2 - Multi-Residential MT 410,470 4 735 921
3 -Commercial CT 713,331 2,463,849 882 565 411207,870
4 - Industrial IT 324,410 638,001 380,975 9188 914
6 - Farmlands FT 6,191,522 81
,412,625
7 - Managed Forests TT 62,346 . - 1112-3-1-0-22-1
FQTAL 38558,6941 3.101850 1 263 540 700,337,446
The assessment data in this table shows the preliminary total property assessment by class based on a statistical sample. This data cannot be used to
estimate how taxes on a particular property might change.
Staff from the Regional Assessment Offices are available to help municipalities interpret this data.
Computer applications are being developed to model various options introduced in recent legislation. Municipalities are invited to identify their software needs
and provide suggestions and recommendations.
FARM TAX REBATE
KEY DECISIONS FOR FARM TAX REBA TE
Municipal Decisions:
• Municipalities can appeal the farmland designation of individual properties
determined to be eligible for reduced property tax rates, once designations are
established.
61
GROSS RECEIPTS TAX (GRT)
Background to the Financial Data Released on August 6:
• Municipal GRT revenue will now be directed to the province. Education GRT
revenue will continue to be received by school boards.
• The data are based on 1997-98 estimated revenue.
62
Dx:vlamw
W.D.W.Impact per Provincial Announcements Attachment#2: Report TR-99-97
Released October 6,1997
October isM
urxtio cant Region of urham .:. Clanngtori Ba s ofAl[acationior Revrew Purposes Only .
.;]Total moeatron AlYocat-ion (P ::hasp.. dedaSt b :l]pL s:F X11 t Feat det ..i io.be
MllhOn::$ .. .:'i ::J;;:.madcb.: an:wittiiArea Mttnfci eLttes:
1. Social Assistance 27,150,000 3,465,451 On Allowances&Benefits:Province 80%/20%Municipalities&Administration split 50/50
It notes cost sharing between upper&lower"in accordance with regulations"(not yet released)
Caseload assigned to Region and 1995 population totals are suggested as an option for allocation.
At 53,842 of 421,824 Clarington is 13%of population x$27.15 million
2. Child Care 3,440,000 439,085 Population is the one option suggested for allocation.
Regulations are to set out how the municipal share of Ontario's costs are apportioned.
3. Public Health 7,420,000 947,096 Population is the one option suggested for allocation.
4. Land Ambulance 7,590,000 968,795 Population is the one option suggested for allocation.
5. Social Housing 40,760,000 5,202,644 Population is one option,assessment is also suggested as the allocation for Regions,&possible
option for Area allocation.#Social Housing Units at 1,362 is an error(actual 408)of 7,587 in Regio
6. Children's Aid Soo. (2,560,000) (326,761) Population is the one option suggested for allocation.
Note-assuming that Region allocates revenue to lower tier.
7. Go Transit 21,670,000 2,765,979 Population/assessment options suggested for allocation;allocated to Region on a.m.boardings.
8. Municipal Transit 5,377,280 42,583 Direct allocation based on capital subsidy&grants(Nandi Transit grants)
9. Septic Systems Inspections 190,000 24,252 Population is the one option suggested for allocation.
10. Provincial Offences (1,660,000) (211,884) Population is the one option suggested for allocation.
Note-assuming that Region allocates revenue to lower tier;local agreement is suggested.
11. Libraries 734,056 73,558 Clarington's actual grant eliminated.
12. Assessment Services Delivery 4,510,000 615,226 Based on#roll entries(Clarington @ 30,840 of Region total 226077)
Note:"Once the legislation is in torte the assessment service delivery body will have to neii tititea,ith the
Province on the details of the operational transfer,including issues such as staff transfer,salaries,benefits,pensions fixed
ssetsand dat abases."THEREFORE FUTURE COSTS Il�LIED
13. Managed Forests Cons.Lands 1,125,582 377,306 Direct allocation to Clarington,Pickering,Brock,Scugog&Uxbridge for all costs.
14. Farm Tax Rebate 4,873,952 1,159,810 Direct Allocation-Clarington is the hardest hit in this area at 24%of total.
15. Gross Tax Receipts 3,396,220 336,538 Direct allocation for Municipal portion of GIRT
124,017,090 15,879,676
Less Education Room-Single Tax Rate (102,800,000) (15,315,577) (Estimate Only using Northumberland/Clarington Public levy$30,631,154 X 50%)
Net Increase in Municipal Costs 21,217,090 564,099
#Households/Dwellings 154.310 20y27
Impact per Household $137.50 $28.03 DOES NOT INCLUDE IMPACTS OF ELIMINATION OF MUNICIPAL SUPPORT GRANT OR
FORCED SHARING OF HYDRO GRANTS-IN-LIEU ETC_AS NOTED IN TR-77-97
Region of Durham-Area Municipal Impact
(NOTE:FINAL ALLOCATION WULL DUFFER BASED ON REGIONAL ASSIGNMENT OF FUNCTION TO UPPER OR LOWER TiER.I
Munici Region Can i» Oshawa Pickerin Wlb Brock Sc o Uxbridge
Po ulation
421,824:>:::>:::::::53842 127,813 58,854 70,733 67,039 10 991 17,880 14,672
Function Program coax Total Cost
Note
1. Social Assistance UT 27,150,000 <::3465451 8,223,471 3,788,040 4,552,612 4,314,854 707,417 1,150,816 944,339
2. Child Care UT 3,440,000::> ;::439;085: 1,042,323 479,958 576,832 546,707 89,632 145,812 119,651
3. Public Health UT 7,420,000: �:':947;Q96: 2,248,266 1,035,258 1,244,213 1,179,234 193,335 314,514 258,085
4. Land Ambulance UT 7,590,000 ?:;:::.968;795: 2,299,776 1,058,977 1,272,719 1,206,252 197,764 321,720 263,997
5. Social Housing UT 40,760,000 i>;5202;Gd'4: 12,350,312 5,686,943 6,834,787 6,477,843 1,062,038 1,727,708 1,417,726
6. Children's Aid Sac. UT (2,560,000 (775,682) (357,178) (429,270) (406,852) (66,703) (108,512) (89,043
7. Go Transit UT 21,670,000'::;:1;2;7653979: 6,566,027 3,023,456 3,633,705 3,443,937 564,631 918,534 753,732
8. Municipal Transit LT 5,377,280 :::::::42583 1,844,186 1,154,413 1,389,269 905,687 0 41,142 0
9. Septic Systems Inspections UT 190,000>��:' ii24;252; 57,570 26,509 31,860 30,196 4,951 8,054 6,609
10. Provincial Offences UT (1,660,000:: ::(21864) (502,981) (231,608) (278,355) (263,818) (43,253) (70,363) (57,739
11. Libraries LT 734,056 217,336 150= 101,449 96,945 20,172 51,251 22,722
12. Assessment Services Delivery UT 4,510,000 ;;:615226: 1,337,996 560,785 718,621 664,380 171,102 240,305 201,584
13. Managed Forests Cons.Lands Com 1,125,582 <:`:177;306 0 0 140,264 0 53,740 425,158 129,114
14. Farm Tax Rebate Cotnt 4,873,950iiI1i598I0 269,766 157,709 215,435 235,094 913,891 1,083,026 839,220
15. Gross Tax Receipts co 3,396,220:?I>:�:�:1:;336538: 1,327,469 430,551 469,278 492,778 100,828 137,763 101,015
Total 124,017,088 15;879676: 36,5081834 0 16,964,436 20,473,419 18,923,237 3,969,546 6,386,929 4,911,012
Less Education Room-Single Tax Rate 102,800,000 15,315,
Net Increase in Municipal Costs 21,217,088 564,099
#Households/Dwellings _____164_._31_0l:;::;*i:;:;20;Y2 49y X388 24� 24_ail 4y72 6y60 5_�
Impact per Household $137 $28 $735 $832 $851 $787 $951 $989 $912
NOTES:
11- Caution should be used in referring to any of the numbers above as they are preliminary and subject to change.
The Education Room value has not been released for Clarington,&estimate above is based on existing Northumberland levy.
The Above Anailysis may show the'worst case scenario' by using the population as the allocation basis in some categories.
2 The Region analysis shows 4 options with the following Impacts for Clarington:
1. Based on the Regional Apportionment 11%
2. Based on a per capita/population analysis(similarto above) 14%
3. Based on a weighted assessment analysis 12%
4. Based on an unweighted assessment analysis 13%
3. The code shows the following assumptions made by the Region in their analysis:
UT indicates tha cost will be allocated bythe Region on an uppertier basis and they have not analysed the lower tier impact.
LT indicates the cost will be allocated by the Region on a lower tier basis and each municipality picks up thier individual cost.
Comb indicates that the cost has been combined and apportioned for upper and lower tier purposes.
905-571-7468 DURHAM FINANCE 156 P02 OCT 17 197 14:08
ATTACHMENT #3
October 15, 1997 "HANDOUT"
TO: The Finance and Administration Committee
FRONT- R.J. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance
RE; REPORT 997-F-74
UPDATE ON WHO DOES WHAT INITIATIVE-BUDGET PLANK NG
PACKAGE
REC0MME�1DATM S:
That the Finance and Administration Committee recommend to Regional Council that:
WHEREAS the recent Provincial Who Does What Budget Planning Package fails to proNide further
detailed financial information regarding the proposed WDW downloaded services and the impacts
related to the concept of GTA-wide pooling.
WHEREAS there will be numerous critical decisions regarding delivery, standards and cost
attribution for the Region and the Area Municipalities in order to assume any new downloaded
service/program.
WTMREAS the newly elected Regional Council of Durham will not be formed until December 3,
1997 and the download related responsibilities of the Region are scheduled to becorne effective
January 1, 1998.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Province defer its plans to download costs to the municipal sector
until its impacts are known to all municipalities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Minister of Finance and Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing be again requested to immediately release sufficiently clear and accurate detailed financial,
statistical and operational information to allow open and informed discussions by atl involved parties,
including the municipal sector.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Mmister of Finance;
the Minister of Municipal Affairs&Housing;the five Durham Region M.P.P_'s.;the eight local area
municipalities; the four local Boards of Education;the Local Boards of Trade and Chambers of
Commerce; the Durham Region Manufacturers Association; the Durham Chapter of the Urban
Development Institute; the Oshawa/Durham Homebuilders Association,the Durham Labour Council
and the Durham Region Federation of Agriculture_
V
905-571-7460 DURHAM FINANCE 156 P03 OCT 17 '97 14:09
REPORT#97-P-74
UPDATE ON WHO DOES WHAT INiTTATIVE-BUDGET PLANIMG PACKAGE Z.
REPORT:
1.0 BACKGROUND
• The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing released a package of Who goes What
Budget Planning Worksheets to all Municipal Clerks and C.A,.O.'s in Ontario which
was received by the Regional Clerk on October 8, 3997.
• This package was to represent the"next level of detail"following the August 6, 1997
Ministry release of financial information for upper tier municipalities(i.e. the pooled
estimates for the GTA Regions)_ According to the Mnistry, this package will be the
basis for discussion at a future unspecified meeting between Regional, Municipal and
Provincial staff.
2.0 HIGI(LIGHTS
• This Provincial package fails to deliver the following:
i) any further financial or statisticaf information to assist the Region in
determining the 1998 budget requisitions for the downloaded responsibilities;
ii) the final impact upon property taxpayers related to the downloading and the
new Provincial education tax policies and funding; or
iii) any analysis of the impacts related to the Provincial initiative to pool social
services and GO Transit costs across the GTA(ie. pooled vs. non-pooled).
• It is still unknown what the impacts will be from the Provincial assumption of
�;O% of the residential education property taxes. The new Provincial education
tax policies and funding remain unknown, but significant factors in determining
any final tax.impacts to Durham property taxpayers.
• Repeated attempts by staff to obtain further detail from the Province have been
unsuccessful.
3.0 ESTMkIED IMPACT ON REGION OF DURHAM
• There is no change to the Provincially-estimated impact of$35.3 million to 538.5
million for Regional property taxpayers as reported by the Commissioner of
Finance in Report 497-F-60. As cautioned in Report#97-F-60,the Pr vi cial
estimate of J 7 9 to $21 1 Million fails to inciud�the impacts of the elimination f the
Municipal Su ort Grant an the trans er of Provincial highways whic increase the
Regional General Lew.impact y approximately$35 3 lion to $38.5 rnillio .
• The Province cautioned municipalities that the August 6, 1997 estimates should not be
used for impact analysis due to various concerns by the Province regarding the data_
This October 6, 1997 Provincial WDW Budget Planning package further warns that
further financial information will be made available"ate.. it is developed".
905-571-7460 DURHAM FINANCE 156 PO4 OCT 17 '97 14:10
REPORT#97-F-74
t1PDATE ON w1jo DOES WHAT INITIATIVE-BUDGET PLAI`1Pi NC PACKAGE 3.
REPORT/cont'd
4.0 FINAL EVI PACT ON PROPERTY TAXPAYERS CAN NOT BE DETERMINED
4.1 Provincial Qualifiers Regarding the WDW Budget Worksheet Package
• The Province identifies several decisions which are"being finalized for a number of
reassessment and tax policy issues",including the following:
"> Payments-in-lieu-the amount and how PII,s will be shared;
► pipelines-assessment rate structure needs to be updated to recognize current
value;
► linear properties-acreage rate program to be determined;
► graduated tax rates for commercial class;
► provincial tax ratio ranges:
► formalized parameters for subclasses;
► working definition of what constitutes an assessment related change, e.g. shifts
created as a result of transition ratios,
► final tax gates for residential education property taxes to let municipalities know
exactly how much of the S2_5 billion province-wide residential education tax room
is available to them,
► final tax structure and rates for commercial and industrial education property
taxes"
• The impact of these outstanding decisions has the potential to further increase the
estimated burden to be placed upon the property taxpayers in Durham Region. For
example, if the residential education tax relief is less than indicated in the August 6,
I997 Provincial announcement,then the total property tax requirements vvill increase-
bu€ staff can not determine the magnitude without the education tax information from
the Province.
4.2 Further Concerns with the WDW Budget Worksheet Package
• Staff remain concerned that the full costs of the downloaded services/programs are not
reflected in these Provincial estimates. For example,the estimates may not include
the administrative costs such as those identified in the report on the downloading of
Social Rousing(Report 997-J-10).
• As a further example of the inaccuracy of the data, the estimated social housing data
contains a.grossly inaccurate unit count for Clarington(i.e. Provincial estimate of
1,362 as compared to Regional estimate of 408).
• The area municipalities are also indicating some discrepancies between their estimates
for managed forest and farm tax rebate, library grants, etc. and the Provincial
estimates.
c
905-571-7460 DURHAM FINANCE 156 P05 OCT 17 '97 14:10
REPORT#97-F-74
UPDATE ON WHO DOSS WHAT U41rIATIVE-BUDGET PLANNING PACKAGE 4_
REP RT/cont'd
4.3 Outstanding Information Requirements and Regional Tasks
• In order to fully determine the potential impacts, the Region requires various detailed
financial information including basic financial data such as'
- cost breakdowns(salaries, rents, etc_) for current Provincial services(eg.
Assessment Office);
- pre and post GTA-pooling costs;
- Provincial program and administration costs,
outstanding liabilities(eg. mortgage;insurance and otherwise),
- agreements with existing service delivery agents; and,
- audited financial statements of current service providers(eg. Social I-[ousing)_
• The Region also requires various statistical informatiou such as;
market value rental revenue& social housing unit counts;
Family Benefit Allowance and Disability caseload; and,
ambulance dispatch services.
• The Region is also obligated to undertake certain actions such as:
- begin negotiations to transfer the Assessment,function;
- formalize process for assumption of land ambulance service delivery;
- participate in reform of social housing programs; and,
- establish interim billing procedures.
• As well, the Region must review its administrative structure&functions(eg. rusk
management insurance,financial reporting)to ensure that the optimal accountability
and efficiencies will be obtained.
5.0 CONCLUSLQN
• The Honourable Al Leach's recent statement that the WDW Budget Package would
"help (municipalities]plan your 1998 budget" demonstrates the complete lack of
understanding by the Province of the municipal budget process. This package fails to
deliver any further information or clarify prior Provincial estimates_ Furthermore,
many of the critical factors related to the residential education tax relief and
a.�sessment/tax policy impacts remain unknown.
• Another critical factor is the steadily decreasing time frame available to the municipal
sector, given the forthcoming municipal election. This Regional Council has only one
meeting left in its mandate while the new Regional Council has only one meeting
scheduled prior to January 1, 1998, the effective date for many of the downloading
initiatives.
905-571-7460 DURHAM FINANCE 156 P06 OCT 17 '97 14:11
REPORT#97-P'-74
UPDATE ON WHO DOES WHAT INU71ATWE-BUDGET PLANNING PACKAGE 5
REPO�T/cont'd
5.0 CONCLUSLQN/cont'd
• The Regional Finance Department will continue to coordinate the ongoing
assessment/tax policy analysis being undertaken with the area municipal staff as well as
WDW impact analysis being undertaken by the Regional?Departments.
• The Regional Finance Department will also continue to request financial and statistical
information required by Regional Council should negotiations regarding the new
Regional responsibilities be undertaken in the new term.
J. Clapp, C_A.,
Cotnnnssioner of Finance
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
G.H.Cubitt, M.S.W.
Chief Administrative Officer
MES:mg r,ta�xePOxrs\auvw t
a