HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-14-93 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
_�a
- ��, 1
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File# T�
Date: APRIL 5, 1993 Res. #
Report#:__WD_-1A_-_93_ File#: -AS-AD-111 By-Law#
Subject: DISENTANGLEMENT
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report WD-14-93 be received for information.
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS
No. 1: Correspondence dated January 22, 1993, from the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
No. 2 : Summary Notes Report No. 93-J-7, dated March, 1993,
and Revised Report No. 93-J-7, dated March 31,
1993.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2 . 1 The correspondence dated January 22, 1993, gives a good
background and overview of the status of proposed
disentanglement. Subsequent to the letter from the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs, the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario has circulated a document entitled, "Disentanglement
One: Consultation Paper on the Draft Provincial-Municipal
Agreement" .
REPORT NO. : WD-14-93 PAGE 2
Also, from February 19 to March 12, the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario has been holding consultation
sessions with municipalities across the Province. On March 8,
the Director of Public Works attended a session at the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Metro Hall. This
session was also attended by the Chief Administrative Officer
of the Region, the Commissioner of Finance and representatives
from the Works Department.
3 .0 REVIEW AND COMMENT
3 . 1 Most of the impact of disentanglement is at the Regional
level. Attachment No. 2 provides the Region's position on
disentanglement as it relates to Regional matters .
The only direct impact of disentanglement on the Town of
Newcastle appears to be related to the Connecting Link
Agreements which the Town has with the Ministry of
Transportation for King Street in Bowmanville and Highway 2 in
the Village of Newcastle. These agreements will be cancelled
as noted on page 23 of the Disentanglement Phase One document:
"As a result of the transfer of these provincial
highways, the connecting link designations which relate
to these highways are no longer appropriate. It is the
intention of MTO to work with the affected municipalities
to identify the impacts associated with the change to
connecting link agreements . No municipality will be
i
financially disadvantaged as a result of these changes . "
3 .2 Although the Ministry of Transportation has not yet decided on
the details for the cancellation of the connecting link
agreements, one suggestion is that the Ministry would raise
� U' { l
REPORT NO. : WD-14-93 PAGE 3
its level of funding for roads to the municipalities to make
up for the difference in subsidy level on the connecting links
from 90% to 50% .
3. 3 The development of the issue of disentanglement will be
monitored and a report will be submitted to Council when
circumstances warrant a position to be undertaken by the Town.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee,
/r
,Walter A. Evans, P.Eng. , Lawrence E. Ko�seff,
Director of Public Works Chief Administrative Officer
WAE*ph
March 30, 1993
Attachment
I
I
i
i
i
I
� U
Attention: PATTIE BARRIE, CLERK
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
s
Ministry of Minist6re des
Municipal Affairos 0
Affairs municipales A,
Ontario M =ad"of Cwtvio
January 22, 1993
The Head of Council:
As you are aware, AMO and the Provincial Government have been working
hard over the past year on what is known as disentanglement. Our efforts are
aimed at reforming the provincial-local relationship to improve acwantability
in service management, funding and delivery at the municipal and provincial
levels.
We're pleased to report that late last night we reached an agreement on phase
one of disentanglement.
The details of that draft agreement are set out in the attached press mlease and
accompanying explanatory notes.
`before the HMO's board of directors signs the final agreement for
implementation on January 1, 1994, AMO will send copies of the draft
agreement to all municipalities, and we'll be seeking your support at a series
of regional consultation sessions.
Should you have any questions about the attached material, please call the
association's office at (416) 929-7573.
Sincerely,
f
John Harrison Dave CookT
Councillor, Township Minister of Municipal
of Delhi Affairs
Co-Chairs, Disentanglem1 ent Steering Committee
1 U 14 ATTACHMENT N0. 1
WD-14-93
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS===JANUARY 22, 1993===PAGE 2
News release
Ontario
Release: January 22, 1993
Drnfprovincial-municipal a ment means
Province to pay 100%p of welfare allowyances
TORONTO -- The provincial government will pay 100 per cent of.the cost of General
Welfare Assistance allowances beginning in Ianuary, 1994 under a draft agreement reached
late, last night by provincial and municipal politicians. -
In return, municipalities will assume certain other responsibilities now funded by the
province but more properly under municipal jurisdiction.
At a joint news conference this morning, Municipal Affairs Minister Dave Cooke and john
Ha::rison, former president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AM:O), said that
the draft agreement is a sign of good will and partnership between the two levels of
government. The agreement centres around a provincial-municipal initiative known as
Disentanglement. Mr. Harrison and Mr. Cooke, who co-chaired the Disentaxgb,-ment
Stem'ing Committee, outlined the draft agreement which sets out a trade of responsibilities
between the two levels of government all aimed at achieving more aceountabl.e, efficient
and effective government.
The overlap, duplication and confusion that results from the province and municipalities cost-
shatxng more than 100 services and programs is no longer acceptable, the co-chairs said.
Disentangling these responsibilities will help people understand-who provides what services
and who can be held accountable for them. Disentanglement also addresses the questions of
which level of government should set policies for a particular program or service, which is
best suited to deliver it and which should fund it and how.
"This is a very important agreement for municipalities," Mr. Harrison said. "It means we
will be able to budget for local priorities without having to worry about massive welfare
expenditures over which we have no control."
"For many years, virtually everyone with an interest in social assistance programs has agreed
that the province should pay 100 per cent of the cost of General Welfare Assistance
allov'Iances. Now we're doing it," Mx. Cooke said. "I am very pleased at what
municipalities and the provincial government have been able to accomplish in less than a
year. It is a tremendous and historic achievement."
Mun;:cipalities now pay about 20 per cent of the cost of General Welfare Assistance
allowances, which is estimated to be at least $350 million in 1992, although the actual year-
I V J (PAGE 2 OF 9)
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS===JANUARY 22, 1993===PAGE 3
end figure is not yet known. While the funding arrangements \kill 'change, people who
receive welfare will continue to receive the same level of service, from the same people, in
the same way they do now.
To help offset this increased provincial expenditure, municipalities will assume funding
responsibilities for property assessment services and certain provincial highways.
Municipalities would pay for property assessment services the province currently funds. The
government will establish a Schedule N agency that will deliver property assessment
services. Under a Schedule IV agency, employees remain civil servants, and the terms and
;auditions of their employment continue to be determined by the collective agreement with
..he Ontario Public Service Employees Union and/or Ontario Public Service guidelines and
directives. The government plans to invite OPSEU and affected employees to consult the
province as the legislation setting up the agency is developed.
Counties and regions will become responsible for the upkeep of some 2,200 kilometres of
provincial highways that are more appropriately under municipal jurisdiction because they
(wry predominantly local traffic.
7:'his agreement also includes measures that will lead to an improved budgeting process for
municipal policing services which gives municipal councils more flexibility irk dealing with
police budgets while ensuring adequate and effective policing services. At the same time, the
provincial government would retain the right to set province-wide policing Zmdards and
ensure those standards are maintained.
unconditional grants to municipalities would also be adjusted to help compensate for the
increased provincial expenditure on welfare. This would 'erisure that the trade-off of funding
responsibilities is equal for municipalities and the province at the time of the agreement.
Neither the province nor any individual municipality will have to raise taxes as a result of the
Disentanglement agreement.
The Ontario government and AMO have been working together on the first phase of
Disentanglement since early 1992. The 12-member provincial-municipal steering committee
agreed early in the discussions that the province should provide' 100 per cent funding of
General Welfare Assistance allowances. Both levels of government believe that property
taxes, which are regressive, should not fund an income redistribution program such as
general welfare allowances. To offset this increased provincial expenditure, the steering
committee identified a number of areas in which municipalities could assume more program
and funding responsibilities. -
The Steering Committee set up expert panels to study general welfare assistance, roads,
Wrnsit, property assessment and police services budgets. The panels, which hal
i
b" (PAGE 30F9)
i
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS===JANUARY 22, 1993===PAGE 4
representatives from unions and community and client groups as well as provincial and
municipal officials, developed options and consulted widely among groups with an interest in
•these areas before malting recommendations to the storing committee. The draft agreement
:reached last night is the result of that work.
Before the Association's board of directors signs the final agreement for implementation on
Xanuary 1, 1994, the Association will• send copies of the draft agreement to all municipalities,
and seek their support through a series of regional consultation sessions.
;."he co-chairs described the Disentanglement exercise as productive and indicative of what
can be done on behalf of the public if.governments work together, Mr. Cooke and Mr.
Harrison said they have developed a better understanding of each governmem-'s perspectives
during the past year, adding that this greater understanding will lead to a more harmonious
and productive relationship in the future. They said the success of this phase augurs well for
future phases of Disentanglement. Phase Two is expected to begin after the final agreement
on Phase One is concluded.
For more information, please contact:
Michael Jordan or Debbie Oakley, Provincial-Local, Relations Secretariat, (41-5) 585-7320
Bab Foulds, Chief Administrative Officer, County of Kent, (519) 351-1010
Doug Raven, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, (416) 929-7573
Sine MacKinnon, Office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (416) 585-7000
I
_ (PAGE 4 OF 9)
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS===JANUARY 22, 1993===PAGE 5
ELEMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT
General Welfare Allowances
The provincial government will pay 100 per cent of the general wj:lfare
allowances paid to people on social assistance. Cities, counties and regional
governments now pay about 20 per cent, estimated to be at least $:350 million in
1992 (the actual year-end figure is not yet known.) The agreement will change
neither the way welfare services are delivered, nor the people who deliver them.
People who receive welfare will continue to receive the same assistance, from
the same people, in the same way they do now.
As part of the agreement, municipalities that deliver welfare will sign interim
service agreements intended to protect current levels of service (sps vial
assistance, supplementary aid, etc.). Administrative costs will continue to be
cost-shared by the province and municipalities. These agreements would remain
in effect until the provincial government proclaims legislation for broader social
assistance reform. The province will consult municipalities on social assistance
delivery options before introducing new social assistance legislation.
Roads
About 2,200 kilometres of what are now classified as provincial highways will
become the responsibility of the counties and regions through which they run,
For the most part, these are highways which, because of the opening of new
multi-lane freeways, are now being used mainly as local roads. For example,
much of Highway 2 in eastern Ontario is used only for local travel, while
through traffic is carried by highway 401. Provincial savings as a result of this
transfer of responsibility are estimated at about $40 million a year. 'The
province has agreed to continue subsidizing municipal roads and municipal roads
administration costs in 1993/94 at current levels.
Prop&rty Assessment Sery* es
Municipalities will pay for property assessment services currently funded by the
Ontario Ministry of Revenue. At the same time, municipalities will take control
of the delivery of the services. That's in keeping with the disentangL;ment
principle that decision-making for service delivery Should be the responsibility
of the level of government that fully finances the service.
.nnnr c nr n
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS===JANUARY 22, 1993===PAGE 6
The government will establish a Schedule IV agency that will deliver property
assessment services. under a Schedule IV agency, employees remain civil
servants, and the terms and Conditions of their employment continue to be
determined by the collective agreement with the Ontario Public Service.
Employees Union and/or Ontario Public Service guidelines and directives. The
government plans to invite OPSEII and affected employees to cor.:sult the
province as the legislation setting up the agency is developed. The municipal
sector would hold a majority of seats on the agency's board of directors. The
province will continue to set oven'-all policy on property assessment. Provincial
savings as a result of this change are estimated at about $135 million.
Unconditional Grants to 113uni,cipalities
The annual unconditional provincial grants to municipalities would. be reduced
by $165 million, effective Jan. 1/94. The grants will be adjusted municipality by
municipality to ensure that no municipality will have to raise its taxes because
of disentanglement.
NON-MONETARY ELEMENTS
Police Servi ss Budgets
The Police Services Act will be amended to formalize the responsibilities of
Police Services Boards with respect to municipal budgeting. A voluntary local
mediation process will be established for budget items on which the board and
the municipal council cannot agree, but council will make the final decision on
the budget. A police services board will contihue'to have the right to ask for a
hearing before the Ontario Civilian Commission on Policing Servioes if it feels
it cannot provide adequate police services as a result of a council decision. The
Commission will continue to have the right to make binding orders and to set a
deadline for implementation. Municipal councils will have the flexilaility to
determine the timetable for phasing in the order. However, the commission can
not'require a municipality to adjust its budget mid-year unless public safety is at
risk.
nin
As part of the agreement, the province and municipalities have agro+ d to hold
an annual joint planning meeting of key Cabinet members and AMC,
representatives to discuss matters of interest to municipal government. For
discussion at that meeting, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will undertake an
analysis of the cumulative impact on municipalities of provincial policy and
program changes made in the previous year.
(PAGE 6 OF 9)
i
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS===JANUARY 22, 1993===PAGE 7
DISENTANGLEMENT FACT SHEET
• 'What is disentanglement?
Disentanglement is the process of changing and clarifying provincial and municipal
roles and responsibilities in providing services to the public.
• Why do we need disentanglement?
The proving and municipalities share responsibility for more than 1()0 services,
leading to overlap, duplication and confusion. Disentangling these responsibilities
will help people understand who provides what service and who can be held
accountable. Disentanglement also addresses the questions of which level of
government should set policies for a particular program or service, which is best
suited to deliver it and which should fund it and how. '
How do we go about "disentangling?"
The current maze of cost-sharing programs has developed over decades. Any changes
to the existing system will have to unfold within a series of phases. Rase one
involves the review and analysis of general welfiaTe assistance allowaTioes, roads and
transit, property assessment services and municipal police services budgets,
Who is leading this reform?
Disentanglement is being guided by a 12-member Steering Committee composed of
six Ontario cabinet ministers and six municipal representatives appointed by AMO:
Municipal Affairs Minister Dave Cooke, Community and Social Services Minister
Marion Boyd, Environment Minister Ruth Grier, Treasurer Floyd Laughren,
Education Minister Tony Silipo; Transportation Minister Gilles Voullot; and
Correctional Services Minister David Christopherson, former Parliamentary
Assistant to the Treasurer; former AMO president John Harrison, MYtro Toronto
Councillor Scott Cavalier, AMO Immediate Past President Helen Cooper, AMO
First 'Vice President Mabel Dougherty, AMO President Joe Mayrinac, and Waterloo
Regional Chairman Ken Selling. Dave Cooke and John Harrison co-chair the
committee.
A Coordinating Committee advises the steering committee on all asp cts of the
reform. It helps set strategic direction, helps establish the mandate and composition
of the expert panels and helps to define strategies for negotiations, consultation and
communication. The Coordinating Committee is composed of senior officials from
provincial ministries and municipalities.
�i (PAGE 7 OF 9)
i
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS===JANUARY 22, 1993===PAGE 8
Since disentangling provincial and municipal shared services may affect the way in
which some employees do their jobs, a Workforce Tmpact Committee was
established to carefully consider any effects disentanglement might have on
employees. This committee, chaired by Ontario Federation of Labour representative
Don Collins, identified and analyzed how employees might be affecte3 by change.
Five expert panels were established to carefully study the areas under review:
municipal roads, municipal transit, property assessment services, general welfare
assistance and municipal police services budgets. Representatives from both the
municipal sector and the province, as well as experts in'each area, were brought
together to review options for change. Options ranged from leaving the current
system in place, to full provincial or municipal funding to slight modi:ications of the
existing relationship,
• What were the working principles:':
To help the provincial and municipal partners negotiate an agreement, the
Disentanglement Steering Committee developed a set of woriang principles. The
principles formed the basis for discussions and were an important step in helping the
partners meet their objectives, while maintaining standards in service aid delivery.
The working principles are summarized below:
Responsibility and authority should be determined by each government's interest; the
proportion of funding should be related to each government's level of authority and
responsibility; the partners should not experience a greater share of financial
responsibility; services aimed at redistributing incbrrie should not be financed from
current municipal revenue sources; decision-making for service delive:,-y should be
the responsibility of the level of government that finances the service; and ongoing
consultation and communication with employees and communities affected by this
reform should be encouraged.
What was the "Fiscal framework?":
The question of the financial impact of disentanglement on both the province and
individual municipalities had to be addressed early in negotiations, Thy, partners
agreed there would be no big financial losers or winners as a result of
disentanglement. They agreed, therefore, that if the province were to fully fund
general welfare allowances,-municipalities would have to assume offsetting
responsibilities for funding in other areas.
(PAGE 8 OF 9)
i
I
I
3
Z
.:THEAGREEMENT'S FINANCIAL PICTURE NEW ROLES AND VALUE
RESPONSIBILITIES ' . rn
- 3
� C
Z
Costs being transferred from municipalities to the Province:
Municipalities' 20%Q funding of General Welfare Allowances, valued at $340 $344 M
mlllion
n
n
n
Costs being transferred from the Province to municipalities:
C Property assessment services $135 M
Responsibility for certain highways actually serving primarily local traffic $ 40 M N
W
Reduction in provincial uncgnditional grants to municipalities $165 M
rn
ca
Net shift in funding responsibilities $ 0
a
rn
0
rn
ca
HAND OUT
SUMMARY NOTES
REPORT #93-J-7
DURHAM REGION'S POSITION ON T'HE
PROPOSED PHASE ONE OF THE
DISENTANGLEMENT INITIATIVE
MARCH 24, 1993
TRI-COMMITTEE MEETING:
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
WORKS AND
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
ATTACHMENT N0. 2
v
WD-14-93
'j
I
PHASE ONE OF DISENTANGLEMENT INITIATIVE
DISENTANGLEMENT Province assumes 100% of
PROPOSAL GWA costs and in return
the Region assumes costs
of certain highways (to be
transferred) as well as its
share of Property
Assessment
• Amount of Unconditional
Grants to be adjusted to
ensure that municipality
remains fiscally neutral.
WHY DISENTANGLE? to clarify roles and
responsibilities of various
levels of government
• to give municipalities
greater control over their
budgets
• to remove the GWA
Allowance from municipal
obligations
i
MARCH, 1993
PAGE #1
4
TABLE 1.0
TBE FINANCIAL PICl'URE - NEW ROLES VALUE
AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Costs being transferred from affected
municipalities to the Province:
Municipalities 201010 funding of GWA at a
negotiated value $340 M
Costs being transferred from the Province to all
municipalities:
A) Property assessment service: $135 M
B) Responsibility for specific highways
actually serving primarily local
traffic: $ 40 M
C) Reduction in provincial unconditional
grants to all municipalities: $165 M
Net shifts in funding responsibilities at the
time of the agreement: $ 0M
993
PAGE z MARCH 1
i
PHASE ONE OF DISENTANGLEMENT INITIATIVE
ESTIMATED COSTS OF DISENTANGLEMENT
TO DURHAM REGION
($ MILLIONS)
1994 1995
PROJECTION PROJECTION
Reduction in GWA Allowances (14.0) (14.0)
Cost of Highway Transfer 3.2 0.9
Cost of Property Assessment
Function 4.7 4.7
Reduction in Unconditional
Grants from the Ontario
Government 7.6 7.6
Net Effect - Surplus (Deficiency) 1.5 0.8
MARCH, 1993
PAGE #3
i
:f llllll
i
TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS
* TOTAL 2,344 2 - LANE KILOMETRES
* SAVINGS TO PROVINCE
$40 MILLION ANNUALLY
$16 M $10 M $14 M
CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE RATIONALIZATION
* DURHAM
H WY 2 66.9
HWY 7 20
H WY 12 6.6
93.5 KM
* 93.5 = 4% _ $ 1.6 MILLION
2,344
ADJUSTMENT $ 0.2 MILLION
TRANSFER ALLOCATION $ 1.8 MILLION ANNUAL
i
r)
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
1. ASSUMPTIONS
i) estimates for maintenance and traffic operations "hard
costs" are based on pro-rata averages for + 100
additional 2-lane kilometres
ii) maintenance costs have allowance for 15 new employees
iii) traffic operations costs have allowance for 2 new field
staff and one new office staff
iv) allowance for 2 new engineering staff is necessary to
cope with additional workload in engineering division
(assume 2 junior engineers)
2 . ANNUAL COSTS
Maintenance $ 941,500
Traffic Operations 432,620
Additional Eng. Staff 140,000
Total $1,5141120
3. START-UP COSTS
Maintenance $1,971,200
Traffic Ops 351,000
Total $2,322,200
i
CALCULATED REGIONAL SHARE OF $40M
1. Based on MTO allocation
93 .5 km/2,344 = 4% or $1,600,000
2 . Based on measured mileage
108.6 km/2,344 = 4.6% or $1,853,240
3 . Based on MTO appraisal sheets
117.7 km/2,344 = 5% or $2,009,000
VALUE OF IIIGIIWAY IIIANSFEII UNDER PIIASE 1 Of UISENIANGLLMLN1
WIT11 NO CHANGE IN MTO ALLOCATION TO UPPER TIER MUNICIPALITIES
Length of Proportion Gross 1992 Adjusted 1992 Increase or Net -
highway transfer of Value of MTO MTO alloc. (Decrease)In Value of -
(2 lane eq.) Transfer Transfer Allocation Incl.transfer MTO allocation Transfer
COUNTY/REGION km % $ $ $ $ $ `
A) 18)=(A)12330 [C)=(B) " 40M (0) (E) (F)=(E)-(D) (G)=(C)-(F)
REGIONS;
DURHAM 93.5 4.01% $1.605,288 $8,476,000 $8.243.699 ($232.301) $1,837,589 �
HALDIMAND-NORFOLK 34.3 1.47% 588,892 6,722,800 6,860.513 (62,287) 651,179
HALTON 38.0 1.63% 652,417 4,220,800 4,245,450 24.650 627,766
HAMILTON-WENTWORT 69.8 3.00% 1,198,386 9,972,400 10,071,284 98,884 1,099,502
METRO TORONTO 66.4 2.85% 1,140,012 38,179,800 36,179,800 0 1,140,012
MUSKOKA 0.0 0.00% 0 7,859,400 6,705,950 (1,153,450) 1,153,450 -
NIAGARA 74.1 3.18% 1,272,212 8,970,500 8.629,112 (341,388) 1,613,600
OTTAWA-CARLETON 55.0 2.36% 944,287 25,107,200 22,942.144 (2,165,056) 3,109,343
OXFORD 27.9 1.20% 479,011 2,917,100 3,011,047 93,947 365,064
PEEL 34.7 1.49% 595,759 5,689,300 5,871,171 181,871 413,688
SUDBURY 0.0 0.00% 0 7,778,100 7,240,884 (537,216) 537,216
WATERLOO 0.0 0.00% 0 8,028,400 7,740,390 (268,010) 288,010
YORK 162.4 6.97% 2,788,222 11,181,500 12,146,871 965,371 1,822,851
COUNTIES
1
BRANT 72.4 3.11% 1,243,025 1,640,200 2,052,868 412,668 830.357
_^ BRUCE 0.0 0.00% 0 3,572,800 3,181,585 (391,215) 391,215
DUFFERIN 27.8 1.19% 477.294 1,145,600 1,355,301 209,701 267,593
ELGIN 71.0 3.05% 1,218,989 6,268,800 5,725,152 (543,648) 1,762,636
ESSEX 30.5 1.31% 523,650 3,584,900 3,732,033 147,133 376.517
Cy FRONTENAC 176.6 7.58% 3,032,020 2,214,100 3,818,703 1,604,603 1,427,417
GREY 0.0 0.00% 1 0 5,659,200 5,019,479 (639,721) 639,721
HALIBURTON 44.1 1.89% 757.147 2,998,000 2,911.966 (86,034) 843,180
HASTINGS 116.8 5.01% 2,005,322 4,497,500 4,661,668 164,188 1,841,134
HURON 72.7 3.12% 1,248,176 4,800.100 4.738,351 (61,749) 1,309,925
KENT 32.6 1.40% 559,705 3,829,500 3,800,789 (28,711) 588,416
LAMBTON 97.3 4.18% 1,670,530 2,871,100 3,212,611 341,511 1,329,019
LANARK 53.9 2.31% 925,401 3,478,500 3,576,907 98,407 826,995
LEEDS AND GRENVILLE 101.8 4.37% 1,747,790 4,765,000 4,970,139 205.139 1,542,651
LENNOX AND ADDINGTC 43.0 1.85% 738,261 2,753.100 2,960,005 206,905 531,355
MIDDLESEX 69.8 3.00% 1,198,386 4,923,600 5,462,739 539,139 659,247
NORTHUMBERLAND 66.7 2.86% 1,145,163 2,137,300 2,415,863 278,563 866,599
PERTH , 4.7 0.20% 80,694 2,647,600 2,203,391 (444,209) 524,903
PETERBOROUGH 124.0 5.32% • 2,128,938 3,371,100 4,143,567 772,467 1,356,471
PRESCOTT/RUSSELL 0.0 0.00% 0 3,844,700 3,592,920 (251,780) 251,780
PRINCE EDWARD 0.0 0.00% 0 2,551.400 2,340,702 (210,698) 210,698
RENFREW 206.8 8.88% 3,550,519 3,399,800. 4,162,162 762,382 2,788,137
SIMCOE 53.2 2.28% 913,383 4,116,600 4,168,387 51,787 661,596
STORMONT D d G 72.1 3.09% 1,237,874 6,026,700 6,081,042 54,342 1,183.533
VICTORIA 115.8 4.97% 1,988,153 3,665,900 4,434,504 768.604 1,219,550
WELLINGTON 20.1 0.86% 345,094 4,986.500 4,441.710 (544,790) 889,884
TOTAL 2,329.8 100.00% $40,000,000 $238.852,900 $238,852,900 (SO) $40,000,000
March 31, 1993
TO: Regional Council
FROM: The Tri-Committees: Health and Social Services, Works and
Finance and Administration
RE: REPORT #93-J-7 AS REVISED BY THE TRI-COMMITTEES (HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, WORKS AND FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION)
ON MARCH 24, 1993
DURHAM REGION'S POSITION ON THE PROPOSED PHASE ONE OF THE
DISENTANGLEMENT INITIATIVE
1.0 RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Finance and Administration, Health and Social
Services and Works Committees recommend to Council that:
• This Report be submitted to the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) as the Region of Durham's
Position on the proposed Phase One of the Disentanglement
initiative;
• Regional staff continue to review and re-assess this
Position, as further information is made available from
the Province and AMO; and,
• Regional staff report to the Finance & Administration,
Works and Health & Social Services Committees and to
Council, on the effects on the Region of any new
information that is made available by the Province or AMO
relating to the Disentanglement initiative.
2.0 SUMMARY OF DURHAM REGION'S POSITION:
2.1 Overall
• Durham Region generally supports ?'
Y pports the principle of ?'
clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the 1'
provincial and municipal governments, so that the public
will better understand who provides which service, the
appropriate level of government to provide the service
and which level of government can be held accountable.
i
t
I
I
2 .
2.0 SUMMARY OF DURHAM REGION'S POSITION, cont'd
2.2 GWA Benefit Costs
• The Region of Durham supports the transfer of GWA Benefit
costs to the Province.
• The Region is opposed to any transfer of the service
delivery function away from the municipalities, primarily
because of the unique capabilities of the municipalities
to meet their communities ' needs while maintaining costs .
The Province is presently reviewing the entire area of
social assistance, including various options for the
delivery of these services . The Region understands that
some of the options under review, for delivery, include
the use of a special purpose body, and use of the local
offices of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The Province should fully disclose the direction and
substance of any restructuring of "human service
delivery" that it is considering.
2.3 Transferred Highways
• The transfer of the specified provincial highways is also
a desirable component of the Phase One agreement and that
it meets many of the Disentanglement working principles.
Although there are discrepancies between the Regional and
Provincial financial data and estimates, these issues are
currently being addressed and should be resolved prior to
any formal agreement.
• The Region has estimated that the costs of maintaining
the transferred highways, along with the costs of
correcting existing deficiencies, are well in excess of
similar estimates prepared by the Province. Further, the
Region requests reimbursement for any transitional costs
that may be incurred as part of this transfer (eg.
signage) . The Province should formally address these
additional cost requirements to ensure that the objective
of fiscal neutrality is achieved.
2.4 Property Assessment Function
• The Region is opposed to the transfer of the Property
Assessment Services to the municipalities.
The current proposal as outlined in the Phase One
Agreement violates several Disentanglement principles .
The proposed transfer of the Property Assessment function
to a Provincial Schedule IV agency will further entangle
the two levels of governments, and the proposed cost
allocation methods subsidizes certain municipalities to
the detriment of the others .
• The amount of the Reduction in Unconditional Grants be
increased by an amount equivalent to the costs to the
Region of the Property Assessment function.
3 .
2.0 SUMMARY OF DURHAM REGION'S POSITION, cont'd
2.5 Reduction in Amount of Unconditional Grants
• The Region agrees with the reduction in amount of the
Unconditional Grants, as the "balancing factor" in the
overall Disentanglement initiative, provided, as
explained further in the Report, that the principle of
fiscal neutrality is maintained.
2.6 General
• It is the understanding of Durham Region that fiscal
neutrality will be maintained throughout the
Disentanglement process . That is, neither the individual
municipalities nor the Province will incur additional
costs arising from the assumption of any new roles or
responsibilities .
• There are several concerns with the proposed transfer of
roles to the Region of Durham for which clarification is
required from the Province and AMO. The Region of Durham
will be unable to make a full assessment of the effects
of the Disentanglement initiative until this information
is made available.
• The Province needs to provide assurance to the Region
that any cost savings, related to the transfer of GWA
allowances, which may occur in the future will be. shared
with the Region. In addition, any unforseen events in
the future, related to the transferred highways or
Property Assessment function, which may require
additional funding by the municipalities should also be
shared with the Province.
i
I
I
I
4 .
3.0 BACKGROUND:
3. 1 Definition:
Reform of the Provincial-Municipal relationship is a priority
for both the Ontario government and the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) , representing most of the
municipal governments across Ontario. This reform initiative
is referred to as Disentanglement.
The stated objective of disentanglement is to realign
Provincial and Municipal roles and responsibilities in the
management, delivery and funding of local services to improve
accountability, control and efficiency in service provision.
Through this process, certain roles of each level of
government have been redefined, giving clearer responsibility
and accountability for specific functions and ensuring
sufficient resources to perform these roles .
The process has included participation, consultation and
communication with employees, their bargaining agents, key
stakeholders and communities affected by this reform.
3.2 The Need for Disentanglement:
The Province and municipalities share responsibility for more
than 100 services provided to the public. Presently, there is
overlap, duplication and general confusion of responsibility
concerning these services . Disentanglement is intended to
clarify responsibilities so that people will better understand
who provides what service and who can be held accountable.
Disentanglement also addresses the issue of which level of
government should be responsible for a particular service or
program, by assessing which party is best suited to deliver
and fund it.
The major reason AMO, in conjunction with the Province,
initiated the disentanglement process was to give
municipalities greater control over their own budgets by:
1) Removing GWA Allowance from municipal obligations
2) Addressing municipal concerns over control of police
service budgets
3) Giving municipalities greater control over delivery of
property assessment services
4) Discouraging potential downloading of costs from the
Province to the municipal level
5) Permitting a more consultative relationship and greater
acknowledgement of the impact of provincial decisions on
local government finances .
i
I U34
i
5 .
3.0 BACKGROUND, cont'd
3.2 The Need for Disentanglement, cont'd
AMO feels that the Phase One Agreement of the Disentanglement
initiative will be a first step towards more accountable,
responsible and understandable government. By making each
level of government more accountable for the services they
provide and pay for, and giving them more control over those
services, AMO believes this will create a more efficient
system of government that should ultimately result in
financial saving to the taxpayer.
3.3 Working Principles:
The process is controlled by the Disentanglement Steering
Committee comprised of six AMO representatives and six Ontario
Cabinet Ministers. The Committee operates under the following
working principles:
• Responsibility and authority should be determined
by each government's interest.
• Proportion of funding should be related to each
government's level of authority and responsibility.
• Neither of the partners should experience a greater
share of financial responsibility as a result of
this process (Fiscal Neutrality) .
• Social Assistance Allowances should not be financed from
current municipal revenue sources .
• Decision-making for service delivery should be the
responsibility of the level of government that finances
the service.
• The disentanglement process should ensure ongoing
participation, consultation and communication with the
stakeholders, employees and affected communities .
The Steering Committee established five Expert Panels composed
of Provincial and Municipal representatives and experts, to
study individual areas of the Disentanglement initiative. The
five areas of focus were:
1) General Welfare Assistance j
2) Property Assessment Program
3) Transit
4) Roadways
5) Police Service Budgets
IUS �
i
6 .
3.0 BACKGROUND, cont'd
3.3 Working Principles, cont'd
The inception of the disentanglement process was jointly
announced by AMO and the Province in August 1991, and Phase
One negotiations commenced in February 1992 .
3.4 Evaluation Criteria:
To evaluate any proposed disentanglement agreement, several
key questions must be addressed. Do the proposed changes
clarify the roles and responsibilities; and do they improve
accountability to the taxpayer? Is the result of the changes
a simpler, more comprehensible division of duties among
governments? Will the changes ultimately result in better
government for the taxpayers of Ontario?
4.0 PHASE ONE OF THE DISENTANGLEMENT PROCESS:
4.1 Announcement of the Draft Agreement:
On January 23, 1993 a draft agreement for Phase One was
released by the Steering Committee. The foundation of the
Phase One agreement is that the Province would assume fiscal
responsibility for 100% of the General Welfare Assistance
Allowance costs. In return, affected municipalities would
assume responsibility for costs associated with property
assessment services and specific provincial highways. An
appropriate adjustment (an increase or decrease) in the
unconditional grants from the Province to the municipalities
would ensure that the initiative remains fiscally neutral.
The intended date for implementation of a Formal
Disentanglement Phase One Agreement is January 1, 1994.
Interim Service Agreements (a general statement of intent to
maintain current level of GWA service to clients including
discretionary programs) between the individual municipalities
and the Province would have to be in place three months prior
to January 1, 1994 (September 30, 1993) . See Appendix A:
General Welfare Assistance Information - for a copy of the
Interim Service Agreement (draft) .
4.2 Status of Phase One of the Disentanglement Process:
AMO is currently requesting the opinions and positions of its
member municipalities concerning the draft agreement. They
are strongly encouraging their member municipalities to submit
their comments and position to AMO (in writing) by no later
than April 7, 1993.
IU � 6
7 .
4.0 PHASE ONE OF THE DISENTANGLEMENT PROCESS, cont'd
4.2 Status of Phase One of the Disentanglement Process, cont,d
The Board of Directors of AMO will meet on April 23, 1993 to
decide if there is sufficient support for the proposed changes
to formally endorse the agreement.
In response to their request, this Report will be submitted to
AMO, following approval by Council, as the Region's position
on the proposed Phase One of the Disentanglement process.
4.3 Future Issues to be Addressed by the Disentanglement Steering
Committee:
Issues intended to be reviewed in the later phases of the
Disentanglement initiative are:
1) Community & Social Services Programs:
C Other GWA - including work activity & hostels
C Child Care/Day Nurseries
U Long Term Care (Homes for the Aged)
C Child Welfare
2) Health
3) Housing
4) Tourism & Recreation
5) Culture & Communications
6) Natural Resources (Conservation Authorities)
7) Other Public Safety
8) Transportation issues - not included in Phase One
G Disabled Transportation
G Ministry of Health Funded Transportation Programs
C Airports
9 ) Environment - entangled programs not addressed in Phase
One
i
i
I
8 .
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT:
5. 1 Overview:
5.1.1 Fiscal Elements:
The Disentanglement Phase One Draft Agreement states
that:
9.1 Ontario and the municipal sector agree
that the fixed value of the tradeoff will
be $340 million.
TABLE 1 .0
THE FINANCIAL PICTURE . NEW ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES VALUE
Costs being transferred from affected municipalities to the Province:
Municipalities 20%funding of GWA at a negotiated value $340 M
Costs being transferred from the Province to all municipalities:
A) Property assessment service: $tar M
B) Responsibility for specific highways actually serving primarily local traffic: $40 M
C) Reduction In provincial unconditional grants to all municipalities: $165 M
Net shifts In funding responsibilities at the time of the agreement: $ 0 M
The foundation of the Phase One agreement is that the
Province would assume fiscal responsibility for 100% of
the General Welfare Assistance Allowance costs. In
return, affected municipalities would assume
responsibility for costs associated with property
assessment services and specific provincial highways. An
appropriate alteration in the unconditional grants from
the Province to affected municipalities would ensure that
the initiative is fiscally neutral .
5.1.2 Non-Fiscal Elements:
Non-Fiscal elements of the Disentanglement Phase One
agreement include:
A) An annual joint planning meeting of key Cabinet
members and AMO representatives to discuss matters
of mutual interest,
B) Introduction of amendments to the Police Services
Act in the Spring of 1993 to provide municipalities
with greater flexibility and control over budgeting
for police services .
i
9 .
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.1.2 Non-Fiscal Elements, cont'd
C) The Province and individual affected municipalities
will be required to enter an Interim Service
Agreement with respect to the transfer of GWA
responsibility. The intention of this agreement is
to define and ensure continuation of the present
level of services and staffing provided under the
GWA.
5.2 Analysis of Major Components:
5.2.1 Estimated Financial Impact on Durham Region:
TABLE 2.0
PROGRAMS DURHAM REGION ANNUAL COSTS ($millions)
1994
PROJECTION 1994 1995
PROVINCE'S PROJECTION PROJECTION
ESTIMATE OUR ESTIMATE OUR ESTIMATE
(using 1992 costs) (using 1992 costs) (using 1992 costs)
1. Reduction in GWA Allowances (14.0) (14.0)(1) (14.0)
2. Highways to be transferred
-Annual Operating Costs 1.5m 1 5
- Capital Costs (start-up) 2.3m(3) -
- Construction Needs 1.2m(4) 1.2
- Estimated Credit from M.T.O. (1.8)mm (1-8)
-Additional Costs of Police Servicing nil('O nil
Total Costs of Highway Transfer 1.7m 3.2 0.9
3. Cost of the Property Assessment Function 4.7 4.7m 4.7
4. Reduction in Unconditional Grants from the
Ontario Government 7.6 7.6 7.6
NET EFFECT- SURPLUS(DEFICIENCY) NIL 1.5 0.8
NOTES:
(1) Based on 1992 Actual Net Municipal GWA Allowance (See Appendix A)
(2) Province has indicated that 93.5 km of highways are to be transferred to Durham Region,whereas our
calculations indicate 108.6 km. The costs In this table is based on 93.5 km and may have to be revised If
the actual amount of transfer is 108.6 km.
(3) Additional Fleet Equipment Required for highway maintenance.
(4) Total requirement of$12 million has been annualized over a ten year period in amounts of$1.2 million
annually. No additional engineering, administrative or overhead costs have been included in this estimate.
(5) A credit provided to Durham Region, by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario,to reflect the reduced
budgetary requirements for transferred highways.
(6) Durham Regional Police estimate that there will be no additional costs to service these new highways.
(7) Estimate obtained from Expert Panel on Property Assessment Services, October 1992. See Appendix D: j
Property Assessment Program Transfer Information.
(8) Calculated as 93.5 km multiplied by the provincial allowance of$17,000 per kilometre.
039
i
i
i
10.
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.1 Estimated Financial Impact on Durham Region, cont'd
The information in the first two columns of the analysis
in Table 2 . 0 is an estimate of the financial impact in
1994, whereas the third column contains a projection of
the effect in 1995 (the second year of the agreement) .
For purposes of the 1994 and 1995 projections, it has
been assumed that inflation will not have a noticeable
effect on costs .
As can be seen from the previous table, there are
significant differences between the Province's estimates
and the estimates of the Regional Municipality of Durham.
These occur primarily in the costs of highway transfers
and the offsetting reduction in unconditional grants.
The differences are explained in greater detail in
Section 5 .2 . 3 of this report.
As a result of these differences, it is projected that
Durham will experience a net annual deficiency of
approximately $1.5 million in 1994 and, a surplus of $0. 8
million in 1995 and in subsequent years . If the 1996
cost projections are consistent with those of 1995, then
Durham may achieve fiscal neutrality by the end of 1996 .
It should be noted that Durham has estimated GWA costs in
1993 to be approximately $16 million, which represents a
$2 million increase over the costs in 1992 . The $2
million increase in GWA costs, assuming. that it continues
into 1994, is a cost that would otherwise have been borne
by the municipality. The effect of this increase is to
offset the projected deficiency in 1994 of $1.5 million
and provide Durham with a small surplus amount ($0 .5
million) . In 1995, following this same assumption,
Durham may experience a surplus of $2 .8 million.
Durham's allocation of the $340 million is based on
preliminary estimates of GWA costs by both the Province
and AMO. AMO is presently preparing more accurate
figures based on the municipalities ' actual 1992 year-end
figures .
I
4 0
11.
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.2 General Welfare Assistance Allowance:
5.2.2.1 The Disentanglement Phase One Draft agreement
states :
7.1 Ontario and the municipal sector
agree that Ontario will assume 100%
of the costs of the General Welfare
Assistance Allowances (GWA)
effective January 1, 1994.
7.2 Interim service Agreements between
Ontario and affected municipalities
will be signed. These agreements,
effective January 1, 1994 will
maintain current levels of service
or discretionary programs funded
through GWA. The agreements will
remain in effect until broader
social assistance legislation is in
place.
5.2.2.2 • PROVINCE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 100% OF GWA COSTS
The Province is presently responsible for
approximately 80% of these costs and the
municipalities 20%. The underlying
justification for this transfer is that the
taxing ability of the municipalities (property
taxes) is not an effective means of supporting
an income redistribution program. The
progressive taxing ability of the Province is
better suited to fund such a program. Further,
by making one party 100% responsible (both
fiscally and politically) , it is hoped that the
program can become more effective and efficient.
The $340 million is a negotiated value for GWA
allowances that both sides agreed to accept.
The Province's initial negotiating position was
$400 million and AMO's was $285 million. Both
parties examined the cost trends and the
probable future costs, economic trends and other
factors, to reach a compromise figure of $340
million.
i
I
I
i
12 .
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.2.3 ESTIMATED COSTS - As set out in Table 2 . 0, the
estimated cost to the Region of Durham in 1992,
of GWA allowances is $14 . 0 million.
A concern was raised that GWA costs are
unusually high at this time due to the present
economic conditions . One may expect these costs
to decrease as the economy recovers . AMO's
position is that, historically, welfare costs do
not decrease. Even in post recession periods,
when unemployment drops, welfare costs do not go
down; they just don't rise as fast.
5.2.2.4 • CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS TO BE MAINTAINED - The
agreement states that it will not alter the
service delivery of the program. The phase
"maintain current service levels " , contained in
the agreement, is intended to commit both the
affected municipalities and the Province to
maintaining services at the same level as
presently exists . Both AMO and Provincial staff
indicated that the Interim Agreement is intended
to be flexible and permit both parties to
accommodate changing circumstances . AMO
expects that all parties will operate within the
spirit of the agreement and not alter the
services or service delivery in an effort to
shift costs to the other party.
It is, therefore, expected that the transfer of
GWA to complete Provincial control will not
affect the existing, staffing, office space,
capital acquisitions, or general delivery of
services . AMO states that there would be no
change for employees or recipients; the program
and the people who deliver it would be the same.
Further, administrative costs would continue to
be shared at the same ratio (50:50) between the
Province and individual affected municipalities.
5.2 .2.5 • PLANNED PROVINCIAL RESTRUCTURING OF HUMAN
SERVICE DELIVERY - An additional concern of GWA
delivery is the Province's planned restructuring
of "human service delivery" . We understand the
Province is reviewing several options for
delivery of these services, including the use of
"special purpose bodies " and, the use of local
Ministry offices .
The Region of Durham is opposed to the transfer
of the delivery of these services away from the
municipalities .
i
13 .
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.2.5 PLANNED PROVINCIAL RESTRUCTURING OF HUMAN SERVICE
DELIVERY, cont'd
The advantages of a municipal delivery system,
relative to the other options, are as follows:
• Serves as a single entry point to a wide
range of services - in addition to welfare
benefits, staff can direct attention to, for
example, employment related training, skill
upgrading and education, special assistance
and supplementary aid, Federal initiatives in
employment and immigration and housing and
shelter programs .
In contrast to this, there could be as many
as four entry points if the Province creates
special purpose bodies for day care, social
assistance, family counselling and services
to seniors .
• Improves public accessibility and
accountability - because of the opportunity
for closer contact with the community and
with the local elected representatives . This
opportunity would not be present, to the same
extent, through a special purpose body or
through the local office of a Provincial
Ministry.
• More responsive to local needs - because of
its knowledge of local conditions, a
municipal delivery system is more likely to
introduce those assistance programs which are
best suited to the needs of its community.
5.2.2.6 • REGION OF DURHAM'S POSITION - It is the Region
of Durham's position that the transfer of GWA to
100% Provincial control is a desirable
objective. However, since this transfer is
occurring at a time when welfare costs are at
extremely high levels, some assurance should be
provided that any cost savings that may occur in
the future, due to reductions in welfare costs,
will be shared with the affected municipalities.
1u4 �
14 .
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.2.6 REGION OF DURHAM'S POSITION, cont'd
The Region is opposed to any transfer of the
service delivery function (for human service
delivery) away from the municipalities .
Further, it is the position of the Region of
Durham that the Province should fully disclose
the direction and substance of any restructuring
of "human service delivery" that it is
considering. Such restructuring could have
substantial impact on the GWA and the municipal
service delivery operations .
5.2.2.7 • SPECIFIC COMMENTS - Specific comments and
concerns on the GWA component of the Phase One
process, as prepared by the Commissioner of
Social Services of the Region of Durham, are set
out in Appendix B.
5.2.3 Transfer of Highways:
5.2.3.1 The Disentanglement Phase One Draft Agreement
states that:
9.2 Ontario and the municipal sector
agree that the transfer of - 2,100
km of Provincial highways is
valued at $40 million.
5.2.3.2 The specific highways to be transferred to the
Region of Durham are (See Appendix C: for a
Regional map depicting specific transferred
highways) :
1) Highway 2 from Metropolitan Toronto to Hope
Township, exclusive of connecting links in
Whitby, Oshawa, Bowmanville and Newcastle
2) Highway 7 from York Region to Brooklin
3) Highway 12 from Whitby to Brooklin
5.2.3.3 BASIS OF TRANSFER - The highways to be
transferred are secondary provincial highways
that have tended to be neglected because of
their local nature. The management of these
highways by the municipal government will
provide for local concerns to be addressed by
"grass-roots" decision-makers . Further,
municipal control of entrances, signs and
severance will provide advantages to the
ratepayers by being accessible. Finally, local
IU44
15 .
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.3.3 BASIS OF TRANSFER, cont'd
spending on roads should be more stable, and not
subject to fluctuations caused by increased GWA
commitments beyond the local control of the
municipalities .
5.2.3.4 • COST ESTIMATES - The province based its estimate
on a transfer of 93 .5 km of highways to the
Regional Municipality of Durham. However, the
Region of Durham's analysis estimates the
transferred highways to be 108. 6 km.
Clarification of this issue is underway. Cost
estimates included in this report are based on
the provincial estimate of 93 .5 km.
Durham will assume approximately 4% of the
proposed highways to be transferred from the
province, and will be entitled to a credit of
$1. 8 million (4% of $40 million) during the
initial year of the Agreement. Annual operating
costs for highway maintenance are estimated at
$1.5 million. Therefore, only $300, 000 of the
credit would be available for construction
needs .
Additional fleet equipment required to maintain
the transferred roads is estimated at $2 .3
million. The Province has not made, and is
unlikely to make a commitment for these costs.
Further the Region of Durham estimates a total
of $12 million will be needed for short-term
construction to rectify existing deficiencies in
the transferred highways. This has been
annualized over ten years to generate a
construction requirement of $1.2 million
annually. The Province intends to transfer the
highways "as is" and will not adjust the credit
for individual municipalities based on present
deficiencies .
Durham Regional Police believe that no
additional costs will be incurred in the
policing of these highways.
In total, the Region of Durham estimates that
funding of approximately $3 .2 million will be
required in 1994 to cover the transferred
highways (see Table 2 . 0) . This total cost is
estimated to decrease to $0 . 9 million in 1995 .
i
16 .
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.3.5 • DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW - It should be noted
that the transfers of these highways will
require a re-examination of the Region's twenty
year program with respect to the Development
Charge By-Law and current levels of development
levies attributable to the roads component.
5.2.3.6 OTHER ISSUES - Clarification is required from
the Province on the question of the policy of
providing subsidy funding to the area
municipalities for roadways which are considered
to be Connecting Links .
The province has not announced the timing of its
plan to construct Highway 407 (sections of this
proposed highway will "parallel" the existing
Highway 7) . Until such time as the province
sets out a construction timetable for the
proposed highway, there is some question as to
whether Highway 7 should be considered as being
eligible for transfer to Durham Region (under
the terms of the Disentanglement initiative) .
Should the transfer of Highway 7 be deferred, as
noted above, then consideration should also be
given to not transferring Highway 12 for
purposes of "connectivity" . Staff are
discussing this issue with the Province.
5.2.3.7 • REGION OF DURHAM'S POSITION - It is the Region
of Durham's position that the transfer of these
highways is a desirable component of the Phase
One agreement. Although there are discrepancies
between the Regional and Provincial financial
data and estimates, these issues are currently
being addressed and should be resolved prior to
the signing of any formal agreement.
5.2.4 Transfer of the Property Assessment Programs:
5.2.4.1 The Disentanglement Phase One Draft Agreement
states:
9.3 Ontario and the municipal sector
agree that the recovery of Property
Assessment charges from
municipalities is valued at $135
million.
IA6
17 .
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.4.2 COMMITTEE'S PROPOSAL - Following the Assessment
Expert Panel recommendations, the Steering
Committee has agreed to the establishment of an
assessment service delivery agency to provide
assessment services to municipalities. The
(Schedule IV) agency would report to a board of
directors with majority municipal
representation, and be funded entirely by
municipalities . The Province would retain
responsibility for setting assessment policy,
such as establishing the legislative rights of
taxpayers to appeal.
The Expert Panel developed the following set of
principles for evaluating options for assessment
service delivery:
A) "Pay for Say"
B) "Ability to Pay"
C) Local Responsiveness
D) Minimum disruption to employees
E) Standard level of Service
F) Efficient Service Delivery
The Region would be charged annually for a basic
level of service based on a formula (50:50)
which balances the need for service - "pay for
say" (number of assessable properties) and
ability to pay (equalized assessment) .
TABLE 3.0
ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FUNCTION ($millions)
Estimated operating costs of existing Property Assessment function In the Region of Durham(Including 3.7
applicable head office and overhead costs)
Estimated costs to the Region of Durham,of this function,according to the method recommended by
the Expert Panel 4.7
Additional cost to the Region of Durham, of usage of method recommended by the Expert Panel 1.0
I �i4 �
18 .
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.4.3 • COST ESTIMATES - The estimated cost to the
Region of Durham would be $4 . 7 million based on
a formula recommended by the Expert Panel.
However, the 1992 operating costs of the
assessment office serving the Durham Region is
only $3. 7 million. The additional $1 million is
the result of the application of the formula
recommended by the Expert Panel. In effect, the
larger, more prosperous municipalities will be
subsidizing the Property Assessment Services for
the other municipalities .
The utilization of a Provincial Schedule IV
agency to control the Property Assessment
Program appears to violate the Disentanglement
Working Principles . The Province will continue
to exercise complete control over all policy
aspects related to Program while the
municipalities will acquire some control over
the delivery, but pay 100% of the costs. This
violates Working Principle 4 .2, "Proportion of
funding should be related to each government's
level of authority and responsibility" .
In summary, the proposed method of transferring
the cost of the Property Assessment Program to
affected municipalities further entangles
governments rather than disentangling them. The
Province will set the policy, lower tiers will
collect the taxes, and upper tiers will pay the
bills.
5.2.4.4 • REGION OF DURHAM'S POSITION - The current
proposal as outlined in the Phase One Agreement
violates several Disentanglement Principles .
The use of a Provincial Schedule IV agency will
further entangle the involved governments, and
the proposed cost allocation subsidizes certain
municipalities to the detriment of the others.
For these reasons, the Region is opposed to the
transfer of the Property Assessment function to
the municipalities . Further, the amount of the
Reduction in Unconditional Grants be increased,
even more than it would otherwise be, to offset
the effect of not transferring the Property
Assessment function.
f
J4
19 .
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.4.4 REGION OF DURHAM'S POSITION, cont'd
The estimated effect on Durham Region of not
including the Property Assessment function
within the proposed phase one of the
Disentanglement initiative, is set out in the
table below. As can be seen, the amount of the
Reduction in Unconditional Grants has increased
by $4 . 7 million to $12 . 3 million to offset the
loss of the Property Assessment function (See
Table 2 for estimated costs to Durham of the
Disentanglement initiate which include the
Property Assessment function.
However, the overall net effect remains the same
as before, ie. a projected deficiency of $1.5
million in 1994 and a surplus of $0 . 8 million in
1995 .
TABLE 4.0
ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT ON DURHAM REGION
OF NOT INCLUDING THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FUNCTION
WITHIN THE PROPOSED PHASE ONE OF THE DISENTANGLEMENT INITIATIVE
PROGRAMS DURHAM REGION ANNUAL COSTS($millions)
1994
PROJECTION 1994 1995
PROVINCE'S PROJECTION PROJECTION
ESTIMATE OUR ESTIMATE OUR ESTIMATE
(using 1992 costs) (using 1992 costs) (using 1992 costs)
1. Reduction In GWA Allowances (14.0) (14.0) (14.0)
2. Highways to be transferred
-Annual Operating Costs 1.5 1.5
- Capital Costs (start-up) 2.3 -
- Construction Needs 1.2 1.2
- Estimated Credit from M.T.O. (1.8) (1.8)
-Additional Costs of Police Servicing nil nil
Total Costs of Highway Transfer 1.7 3.2 0.9
3. Reduction in Unconditional Grants from the
Ontario Government 12.3 12.3 12.3
NET EFFECT- SURPLUS(DEFICIENCY) NIL 1.5 0.8
5.2.5 New Rules Governing Police Service Budgets:
Under the new system, Police Services Boards would have
to work on their budgets in cooperation with their
municipal councils . A voluntary local mediation process
could be established in cases where the Police Service
Board and Council disagree on budgetary items, but the
Council would have the final say on the budget.
I
I
20.
5.0 PHASE ONE DRAFT AGREEMENT, cont'd
5.2.5 New Rules Governing Police Service Budgets, cont'd
The Police Services Board would continue to have the
right to ask the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police
Services for a hearing if it believed that it could not
provide adequate police services as a result of Council's
Budget Decision.
The Commission would continue to have the authority to
make binding orders and to set a deadline for
implementation, however, municipal councils would have
the flexibility to determine the timetable for phasing
in an order. The Commission must also take into account
the municipal ability to pay, and the Commission's
authority to require changes that would result in in-year
impacts on a municipal budget would be limited to
circumstances where public safety was at risk.
6.0 REGION OF DURHAM'S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AGREEMENT:
The Region of Durham, through AMO has been an active
participant in the critique of Phase One. On February 5,
1993, the Region forwarded a Memorandum to a
Disentanglement Task Group, (acting on behalf of the
Chair and Chief Administrative Officers of the Regions) ,
outlining the Region's comments, concerns and requests
for additional detailed information. The comments from
Durham Region, together with those of other Regions, were
presented to the Province by this Disentanglement Task
Group.
Recently, on February 24, 1993, a preliminary response to
some of these concerns was received from the Task Group.
However, there are still issues that remain unresolved.
AMO recently ssued a Consultation
Y paper on this subject �
and is offering consultation sessions, which commenced in
early March 1993, to discuss various aspects of the
Disentanglement initiative. Regional staff have reviewed
the Consultation paper and have attended one of these
sessions . This Report, following approval by Council,
will be submitted to AMO prior to April 7, 1993 .
i
I
21.
7.0 SUMMARY:
In summary, the Region of Durham supports the concept and
principles of the Disentanglement initiative. However,
further clarification is required of the Province, for
many issues, to ensure that the principle of fiscal
neutrality is maintained. Regional staff will continue
to request this information from the Province and analyze
all such information as it becomes available.
:mg
Attach.
I:\REPORT3\Diaentang1e.amended
I
APPENDIX A
DISENTANGLEMENT PHASE ONE DRAM
AGREEMENT
GENERAL WELFARE ASSISTANCE
INFORMATION
i
SERVICES AND ITEMS COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT
The Province and Municipality agree that the following services and items will
be covered by the terms of this Agreement:
GENERAL WELFARE ALLOWANCE' (100%prov4uW fuaint_ 111194)
(i) Basic Needs Allowance
this allowance coven food, shelter, clothing, incidentals and
non-shelter items
(ii) Basic Shelter Allowance
a flat rate allowance for shelter based on the number of persons
in the family
(iii) Variable Shelter Allowance
this allowance is granted if the total accommodation costs:
exceed the Basic Shelter Allowance. It is payable in addition to
the Basic Shelter Allowance up to a maximum amount.
('iv) Back To School Allowance
paid to consumers who have dependent children to assist with
the costs of starting or returning to school
(v) Winter Clothing Allowance
paid in November of each year for eligible dependents under age
21 to assist with clothing needs
(vi). Community Start-Up Allowance
paid to consumers who are establishing new, permanent
residences in the community.
(vii) Employment Start-Up Benefits
paid to consumers who are starting or changing employment or
training programs.
(viii) Child Care Start-Up Costs
. i
paid to consumers who are starting or changing employment or
training programs and who have initial child care costs
Ot
- i
i
(ix) Pregnancy Allowance
paid to eligible consumers for any six month prior or after the
birth of a child
(x) Special Diets
paid to consumers to cover the costs of special diets as approved
by a physician
(xi) Foster Care
paid to persons caring for a child under age 16 where the child
is not their natural child, adopted or a ward of the Children's
Aid Society
(xii) Extended Health Allowance
provides for extended health coverage to employed consumers
who would otherwise be ineligible for assistance
(xiii) Special Necessities
paid to consumers for Diabetic Supplies, Surgical Supplies and
Dressings and Travel and Transportation required for medical
treatment
(xiv) Hostels
payment of a per diem to cover the cost of board and lodging in
a hostel that is either maintained by the Municipality or an
organization approved by the Municipality or Province
(xv) Personal Needs Allowance
paid to consumers of social assistance who are residents of
Hostels, Nursing Homes and Hospitals
SPECIAL ASSISTANCE: (cost share remains 50:50)
(i) paid to consumers of General Welfare Assistance and others on
a discretionary basis for items and services in addition to items
(i) through (xv) as listed above.
SUPPLEMENATARY AID: (cost share remains 80:10)
(i) paid to consumers of other governmental benefits on a
discretionary basis for items and services in addition to items (i)
through (xv) as listed above.
INTERLM SERVICE AGREEMENT
1.0 PREAMBLE
The Province of Ontario and Municipalities agree that Ontario will assume
100% of the costs of General Welfare Act (GWA) allowances effective
January 1, 1994. The intent of the Interim Service Agreement is to affirm that
the Province and Municipality have a shared interest and mutual obligation to
provide high quality service to consumers of the GWA program.
The Interim Service Agreement will:
♦ provide a declaration of mutual obligations and shared responsibili ties
♦ affirm adherence to the minimum requirements for service delivery as
currently presribed, including an agreement to institute approved
practices for monitoring and auditing the program
♦ ensure a commitment by the Province to support Municipalities in their
efforts to sustain service levels and meet service delivery requirements
2.0 TRYfEFRANIE
The Interim Service Agreement will be effective from January 1, 1994 until
such time as it is no longer applies as a result of the implementation of new
income maintenance legislation in any municipality or until it is replaced by a
new Agreement upon consent of both pasties.
3.0 PROGRAMS COVERED BY THIS INTERIM SERVICE
AGREEMENT
The Agreement will outline the parties commitment to protect the levels of
service and administration within the General Welfare Assistance Act.
Specifically, this Agreement will include the items, benefits and services
provided by way of:
♦ General Welfare Allowances
♦ Special Assistance (not subject to 100% provincial funding)
♦ Supplementary Aid (not subject to 100% provincial funding)
03
i
4.0 ADINUNISTRATION
The Province and Municipalities recognize that available resources impact on
the ability of both parties to meet the obligations and responsibilities of service
provision.
5.0 THE PROVINCE
5.1 The Province will to the extent possible:
(i) provide funding for cost of administration to support the
delivery of the program;
(ii) continue to seek the advice of municipalities on program
changes and implementation;
(iii) ensure that municipalities are informed and updated through
timely distribution of Directives, Guidelines and Regulation
amendments
6.0 THE MUNICIPALITY
6.1 The Municipality will to the extent possible:
(i) provide funding for cost of administration to support the
delivery of the program;
(ii) maintain management staffing structures and processes which
promote effective delivery, serve the needs of consumers and
respond to changes in a timely and efficient manner;
(iii) serve the nerds of consumers by maintaining or improving the
levels of service provided through Special Assistance,
Supplementary Aid and Hostel Services;
(iv) deliver the programs in accordance with the GWA Act,
Regulation and directives from the Director whose provisions
may change from time to time.
This Agreement has been signed on behalf of the Government of Ontario by
the Minister, Ministry of Community and Social Services and on behalf of the
Municipality by the Chairman and the Clerk of the Corporation who has
affixed its corporate seal hereto.
Dated at this day of 1993
I
i
APPENDIX B
MEMORANDUM FROM THE REGION OF DURHAM
TO
THE DISENTANGLEMENT TASK GROUP
(acting on behalf of the Chair and Chief Administrative Officers of the Regions)
DATED FEBRUARY 5, 1993
RE: PRELIMINARY COMMENTS/CONCERNS ON
PROPOSED
DISENTANGLEMENT AGREEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Katherine van Kooy
(On behalf of the Regional Chief
Administrative Officers)
DURHAM
FROM: J.L. Gartley, Commissioner of Finance
The Regiow DATE: February 51 1993
Munfc"Ity
aounw. RE: Preliminary Comments/Concerns an Proposed
Disentanglement Agreement
As requested, we enclose our preliminary
comments/concerns on the proposed Disentanglement
Agreement.
1.0 OVERALL CONCERNS
• Given that one of the underlying principles of
this Agreement is to achieve fiscal neutrality
between the Province and the municipalities,
- -- - - ---------- - we need assurance that any----reductions in : -
welfare costs (if any) that may occur in the
future will be shared with the municipalities.
Conversely, any unforseen events in the
future, related to the transferred highways or
the Property Assessment function, which may
require additional, fundinq on the part of the
municipalities should also be shared with the
Province.
• Following implementation, the Agreement should
be reviewed annually for a period of at least
5 years to ensure that the principle of fiscal
neutrality is being met.
• These comments/concerns have been prepared
without having an opportunity to review the
final reports of the Roads Expert Panel,
Transit Expert Panel and the General Welfare
Assistance Expert Panel.
• Communication between the Province and the
municipalities, on all aspects of the
Disentanglement process, should occur as
frequently as is possible. This will allow
all parties to adequately plan and prepare far
their new responsibilities .
i
1
01
CX\n==T_X=
2 .
2 . 0 ERELIMINARY SUGARY OF THE EFFECTS OF THE AGREEMENT
For your information, a summary of the effects of
the proposed Disentanglement Agreement on Durham
Region has been set out below. At this time, due
to the many assumptions that have been made, there
is "imprecision• within this estimate.
Es&r&od Ef od on Dwttarn Region
1994
Annual
Program Coat
i nzon
1. Reduction in GWA Mowances m;$14.0)
2 K+gn xy assw)&d by Region 1012
. operxJng costs Z,
• capital costs (raft•up) m w ot12
. construction needs wr
—_ • . es*r ted credo from NLT.O
-- -- ade6onsi ooss of podce serAdng
S. Cost of funding the Property ALssessnnen2 Of4ice n4J
4. Reduction in Uncond?tiorW Grants from the Protitnw a
Net effect to Durham Region
Notex
M See Anachrnert<I.
w Province has ir�catsd that 93.3 lan of hiQR+Mrys an to be tranafemd 10 Durham Re> L wfsertis
our calculatlora irelcala 10&6 inn The att:ctted cost estkmates are based on 90.3 tan w4 my
have to be revised if the awl amount of transtsr increases to 106.6 inn
w ToW requirement d$IZM has been annualized over a ton year perfod to amounts d 112M
annuatty.
Not ays+lable 9 this tirmo.
w Estlmarre obtained from Expert Panel on Property llsaeasment Serv+cos October 19W-
Elled of coat of ttw"?term'3 to reduce the amount of the reduction it uncondrttorw grasm trflm
the Province to Durham Region.
A No ddrtional engineering, adrrtinistrs?» or ovefiead costs have begirt inducted in this essrmesa.
w To offset the ef`ect of the Otto heats.
3 . 0 Q010 ENTS ON THE G'AA ALLOWANCES PORTION
• The memo (Attachment 2) from the Commissioner
of Social Services, Region of Durham, sets out
our comments/concerns on this item.
i
O 2 �
i
3.
4 . 0 COUNTS ON THE TRANSFER OP HIGHWAYS
4 . 1 _Aghways
4 . 1. 1. Short-Term Construction Needs
Staff of Durham Region have undertaken a
preliminary assessment of the short-term
construction needs for the subject highway
transfers to the Region and we estimate a
total of $12M will be required in the short-
term to rectify existing deficiencies.
The calculated credit to be applied to the
additional road transfers in our case is
apparently 4% of $40M or $1.6X. Whereas this
amount of additional allocation will be
sufficient for operational and maintenance
work, we estimate only $400,000 a year will be
available to apply to actual construction
needs.
We understand that MTO based its capital
estimate for construction on a 7-yeas average
of actual MTO capital expenditures, and that
the total amount for the Province as a whole
was based entirely on work actually done and
does not necessarily reflect needs (the
portion related to capital expenditures
represents $16M of the total allocation by MTO
of $40M) .
We are anxious to receive IM's relevant road
inventory and structure sheets at the earliest
opportunity, so that we can compare them with
our own assessment and refine our numbers.
If our assessment of $12M for Durham Region is
accurate, we are concerned about the financial
liability which will be placed on the Region
upon transferring the roads.
4 . 1.2 Long-Term Growth-Related Needs
In addition to the -Now- needs identified
above, we have estimated a total of $25M for
capital expenditures related to widening of
existing highways . This requirement will be
dictated by future growth and subsequent
increases in traffic volumes.
The cost of these -Growth-Related- needs would
have to be addressed in a review of the
Region's Development Charge By-Law and
associated cost estimates .
03
C*\nX==.X=
a60
4 .
4 . 0 COHMNTS ON THE TRANSFER OF HIGHWAYS (cont'dl
4 . 1.2 Long-Tern Growth-Related Needs (cont'd)
Timing for these improvements would be in the
10 year ( and beyond) range.
4 . 1.3 Proposed 1993 Projects
Again, we are anxious to receive a list of
proposed 1993 projects, as this may diminish
somewhat the total needs in the. system within
Durham.
4 . 1 .4 Special Subsidy Consideration
What opportunity will there be for special
subsidy funds (supplementaries) to address
major construction needs on highways being
assumed by Durham (i.e. "Hole in the Walla at
.. Newcastle, which is estimated_ to cost $8K)?
4 .1.5 Calculation of Equivalent Lane Kilometres
Our calculation of equivalent lane kilometres
( 108 .6 km) does not quite match the amounts
published for Durham (93.5 km.) to date.
The difference of approximately 15 . 1 km could
make a difference of $260,000 when applied to
the allocation of the $40M credit.
We would like an opportunity to review these
figures with MTO staff before finalization.
4 .1 .6 Annual Costs
Our preliminary estimate for Durham Region for
annual operating and maintenance costs is
$1 .2M, on the basis of assuming an extra 93.5 "
km of 2-lane highway.
In addition to annual operational costs, we
have identified the need for additional fleet
equipment, estimated at $2.3 million in total.
This initial capital figure could be reduced
by using contractors. However, the use of
contractors and/or rented equipment would then
increase the previously quoted annual costs.
o4
I U6
i
• s.
4 .0 MMNTS ON THE TRANSFER OF HZGHWKY$ (cont'da
4 . 1.7 Status of Highway 47
Although Highway 47, from the Regional Road 21
junction easterly to Highways 7/12, is
identified as a transfer, the length
associated with this section of highway has
not been used in determining total lane
kilometres .
We understand this may be a special case,
involving a trade-off with our Road 21. If
so, this matter should be discussed in the
near future with MTO.
4 . 1 . 8 We strongly support the Province's suggestion
of the possibility of some form of operating
agreement with municipalities to** the
operational transition, e.g. , for a Region to
assume responsibility at the end of the snow
removal season.
However, the Region is not interested at this
time in considering transfer of equipment or
manpower.
4.1.9 MTO should fund the cost of the transfer,
i.e. , change of signing, etc.
4 .2 Additional Police Servicing
Costs for Transferred Highways
• An estimate of the costs of this item is not
available at the present time; we anticipate
that it will be available in the near future.
The effect of the additional police servicing
costs would be to reduce the amount of the
reduction in unconditional grants from the
Province to Durham Region.
• To ensure consistency in calculation among the
Regions, and that certain costs are not
overlooked, it would be useful to circulate a
sample calculation to all Regions.
I
i
c�vxasaar.�c
05
id 6
I
6.
L
5 . 0 90MMBNTS ON THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FUNCTION
Our comments and concerns, in this regard, are
based on a review of the Final Report of the Expert
Panel on Property Assessment Services (dated
October, 1992) together with brief discussions held
with the Treasurers of the area municipalities.
Although this Final Report (referred to as the
Expert Panel 's Final Report) provides a good
overview and examination of the issues, it lacks
the detail required to make a far reaching
decision.
5 . 1 Structural
5. 1 . 1 It - is of primary concern that any nev
structure (dealing with the property tai
assessment function) remain committed to
standardization across the province. This
will prevent an individual municipality from
manipulating the process to gain an unfair
advantage in attracting/keeping businesses:-----
5. 1. 2 A single Board of Control over , the
organization would likely not be sufficient to
exercise adequate control. It may be
necessary to also have sub-committees covering
policy questions, levels of service, staffing,
administration, etc. Representatives of
different municipalities would be appointed to
the sub-committees on a rotating basis.
5. 2 Service Level Issues
5.2. 1 A survey of Durham Region's Municipal
Treasurers indicate general satisfaction with
present service levels. However, certain
comments should be highlighted;
• The level of service has decreased over
the past several years; this was
attributed to reductions in levels of
staff
• During "Boom" construction years,
response time of the assessment office
was slow.
i
06
i
i
7.
5 .0 COMN2NTS ON THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FUNCTION (cont_d1
5.2.2 The Expert Panel 's Final Report (p. 23) stated
that existing staffing levels of the Property
Assessment Program are
•
*inadequate to service the needs of high
growth areas • and "Property Assessment
Program now operates at full capacity .. .
existing staff levels are also inadequate
to provide additional services to
municipal clients* .
It, therefore, appears that reform or
expansion is necessary.
5 .2 . 3 One deficiency of the current structure is the
lack of local input. With the new Property
Assessment Program controlled by a board of
directors elected by the AMO, - it will still
remain. a centrally..controlled organization._
• What policies or procedural mechanisms
will be implemented to ensure
responsiveness to local service needs?
5 .2.4 Continuation of research and experimentation
in new Technologies (ESPRIT PROGRAM) to
provide more efficient and effective service
should be continued and encouraged.
5 . 3 Accountability
5.3.1 Policies i Procedures relating to individual
municipality's information requests should be
established to ensure that all municipalities
are treated in a fair and equitable manner.
5 . 3 .2 A mechanism of accountability to the
individual municipality's requests should be
established. Perhaps a Complaints Committee
should be established for the individual
municipality (including the ability to appeal
a decision to the Board of Directors) .
I
5 . 3.3 If the new structure continues to rely on the
Ministry of Revenue's Information Technology
Division for information processing needs,
changes will be required to the existing
accountability relationships.
0'7 �
ocwi,omo:.�
�_� 6 4 i
5 . 0 COKMENTS ON THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FUNCTION (co_nt'di
5 .4 Expenditures
5 .4. 1 administration/Personnel and Data Support
expenditures for the Property Assessment
function, amounted to $14 .8 million, or 111 of
the total expenditures. Since these costs are
allocated from other departments of the
Ministry; more information is requested
concerning the allocation.
5 .4 .2 By transferring the policy and fiscal
responsibilities to the municipalities; will
the municipalities also be inheriting the
liabilities of the Property Assessment
Program?
• For example, - if retroactive public
service pay equity or additional coverage
under Workers Compensation Program
legislated; will the municipalities be
liable for those costs attributed to the
period while the Property Assessment
Program was under provincial control?
• Property Assessment Program defends
*approximately 100 - 125 thousand
assessment appeals each year" (Expert
Panel 's Final Report, page 9) . Will a
mechanism be in place to ensure that the
province covers the costs and awards of
any appeals relating to the period of
Provincial control?
5.4 .3 Both short and long term operating budgets and
forecasts (including a strategic plan) would
be extremely helpful in analyzing the impact
of this initiative.
5.5 Allocation of Costs to Users
5 . 5.1 If responsibility for this operation is passed
over to the municipalities, will they become
the "owners " of the informational databases?
• What obligations will the municipalities
inherit from the prior structure to share
information?
•.
Will the new Property Assessment Program
be permitted to implement service charges
on Provincial Government Organizations
that require access to data, especially
the Boards of Education.
U65
i
9 .
5 .0 COMMENTS ON THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FUNCTION (cont'd
5.5.2 The Expert Panel 's Final Report recommended
that the new Property Assessment Program
• •charge municipalities for a standard
level of service available to all
municipalities across the province . . .
because it is administratively simple and
satisfies the Panel's commitment to
provide the same level of service to
municipalities of all sizes and financial
capabilities " (page 29)
For greater clarification, there should be a
more precise definition of this level of
Service.
5.5.3 Certain services offered by the Property
Assessment Program are considered optional to
the municipalities (Expert Panel's Final
---- -- - - -
-- Report, Appendix D) .--Wi1-1-municipalities that.-
request these services be charged an
additional fee?
5.6 Other
• It may be beneficial for the municipalities,
as a whole, to hire an independent financial
advisor to review the finances of the Property
Assessment program, prior to the date of
transfer.
• Similarly, following the transfer, the annual
finances of the Property Assessment program
should be audited by an independent group.
if you require any clarification on these comments,
please contact me at your convenience.
J.Lj pdrtley, CXh
Co ssioner of Finance
Attach.
JLG:dlk
cc: D.R. Evans, Chief Administrative Officer
G.H. Cubitt, Commissioner of Social Services
V.A. Silgailis, Commissioner of Works
09
I i� 66
A E C a,
1.992 ACTUAL MI�NICIPAI GWA ALLOWANCE EXPFtininJRES
Name of Municipality/
Dlstrist Welfare Board: REGION OF DURHAM SOCIAL SERVICES
Contact Person: CRAIG T. BROWN, MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Telephone: (416) 432-6104
Fax (4161579-1386
1992 ACTUAL MUNICIPAL GWA ALLOWANCE EXPENDITURES (Municipal Share Only)
(A) IN ILLUSTRATION BELOW = = 15,742,,g
1992 ACTUAL MUNICIPAL RELIEF = IC) IN ILLUSTRATION BELOW = 1,752,C
1992 ACTUAL NET MUNICIPAL GWA ALLOWANCE EXPENDITURES =(A-C) IN ILLUSTRAT
BELOW = * 13,990's
11.ID
• ,motional�JI ����
E5 1 1993
.E,,.of SOC"0'.S
i
10
•• 1 I 7
. . . Page 1
DURHAM interoffice Memorandum
The Ae9►onet
Municipality To j, L Gartley,
Of Durharn Gommistioner of Fl.nanm
From G. H. Cubit:4
Date: Comndssloner of Social Services.
February S, 1993.
Re
DisentameMent Agrecment:• information P4quIremenix.
L ?fie foTlorFing comments are prepared as t consequence of Me
request of Ms. Katherine van Kooy, forwarded to tqy attention W
action by Mr. D. R Evans, Chief Administrative Off. 1 trust
you will find the comments of value in your response on behalf of
the Regional Municipality of Durham to Ns. ran X00,�-
2, As you are aware, we are currently reviewing the affected General
Welfare assistance net cost items to ascertain more clearly the
financial impact of the tentative agreement, As It Appears At this
time, an amount somewhat less than 14 Million Dollars would
app-car applicable to the Regional Municipality of Durham.
3. There are some questions which exist with rcgard to the area of
domlcWAjy hostels. Given thAt the agreement appears to still foe
the 10()% funding of domiciilary hostel costs, it quactlon 1s r2lW
as to whether the Province of Ontario will be providing eohal
purchase of service contracts with such facilities or. and
discretion exist with reg&A to the continued negotiation
ezecuttoa of such domiciliary hostel Agreements
4. As you art aware, items provided under special assistanct and
supplementary add have been provided at municipal discretion. Tts•
agreement does call for an undertaking to maintain discretionary
Items covered under these two categories at the same level as
established at the time of the agreement. There msy be some need
for additional clariflc>itlost on what municipal dlscretlo1,If any,wM
rernala within tbeso two cost shared areas.
ll
6168
pig
Following rnm the above comment, there is a requirement to h.an
the matter of supplementary aid and spccfal assirtance, along with
other discretionary are-as, defined more clearly for purposes of
evaluatlon of the agreement For example, does the aVeem'eai
Include such programmes as employment, chlld dare, ellgibi'My
review officers, purchase of service contrada, educatlonal sapport
programmes, etc., to the discretiona.ty package whist the
municipality must agree to maintain after the new funding
agreement Is signed? Minimally, some clarilicatlou with regard to
this matter would seem essential.
6. Further to the above, it is essential to have a clear understanding
of what Is required in the undertaking to maintain the discredonal
programmm Does this mean that they are to be maintained at the
same level as evident In 1992, maintained at the same availab'Tty
per case a.s was rvidcnt in 1992, maintained at the same nscal
Investment that was evident In 1992, or,having estabilshed on Mid
basis the equatability gill be adJudicAted, will the date be 19A
1993, or the date at which the agreement takes effaxt on January 1.
1994! As you can see, depending upon what measure h used to
define the level of provision, and depending upon the date that 1s
used to define the effective period, there can be significant
diffcmnces for the municipality on Its agreeing to maintain
dlscredonary programme areas at the same level.
1. With this agreement, and the clear statement that It does not effect
delivery, we are operating under the assumption that the current
integration agreement, with all of Its components of staffia&
staffing ratios, and subsidy approvals, will remain totally In eftd
alter the signing of the Lnlerim agreement proposed.
L We are also of the opinloa that the current system being utilized Ibr
the claiming of subsidy amounts, will continue. In essencr, we
assume that the claim will o* vary by the amount or subsidy that
Is being requested, In other words, It will move from 80 or 90%
subsidy to 10M.
I
9. 'Mere Is some question as to whether or not municipalities will
assume the costa associatcd with postage as tt applies to the
de.11yery of the 100% funded provincW Income assisuace packages
I
. . 3
i
1 �
i ; 4f? `i
i
10. Again, as was noted above, the assumption is being inside that the
administration process, regarding the subsidization of staff, omit
space, capital acquisitinnA, etc, which has beoi In plan within the
lnteotlon agreement evident In the Re&W Munklpal* ed
Durhaat, wlll remain In tact fbllowing the ezecutlon of dds orw
agreement for the tending of General Welfare Assistance payments.
11. As you om z" from the above, the most stgnlAcant area of question
centres around Items Included In the ovtr-all discretionary
component referencod In the agroOment, and the effective date of
that undertaking to maintain similar levels, and the measure thst
Is being used to deflne the level. Siml put,what Is Included, ss .
of what date, and on what measure'
12. 1 trust these comments will be of some assistance to you as you put
together the overaTI regional submission with regard to this mattes
GA H. butt, M.S.W.,
Commissioner of Social Services.
GHC;bc
P.G - Mr. D. R. Evans, P. Eng.,
Chlef Administrative Weer.
APPENDIX C
A MAP OUTLI1vING THE HIGHWAYS TO
BE TRANSFERRED TO DURHAM
REGION AS PART OF THE
DISENTANGLEMENT INITIATIVE
- iii
v 4 v
t.eoskdote
TOWNSHIP
p I OF BROCK 0 o DURHAM
OF UXBRIDGE >v REGION
fF
VO
Uxbridge as �GJ
LEGEND
Port P sA :3 MMI NOW NEEDS
0
c Goodwood CJ GROWTH RELATED NEEDS
0 0
Q) TOW SHIP OF SCUGOG 0 "'""� HIGHWAYS
tea; v RAIL LIDS
C.P. NAZI
0 �� > —{}— REGIONAL ROADS
} Q • Myrtle Stoti n = Ro ton Burke on
ore ont Ashburn 0
TOWN OF C TY OF
WHITBY 0 HABIA Enniskillen iskillen OWN OF
x15.0 M Bro Columbus +� NEWCASTLE
TOWN 0 v �
PICKERING a b = Ham ton •Kendot C0 v
P
TO co Orono
D
cQ'. A ax itb c X
Pi ring tat M
„N ourtice _ Bowmo ville
Newtonvill
83,0 Newcostle �
t C.P. PAn -� ssi.b Mr -c
$0.6 M Z
SCALE C.1j.
LAKE ONTARIO C.P.R.
o , : aces s • • a BRIDGE
88.0 M
(NOW NEED) '—'
APPENDIX D
DISENTANGLEMENT PHASE ONE DRAFT
AGREEMENT
PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY TRANSFER
INFORMATION
i
SUMMARY OF HIGHWAY TRANSFERS
REGION/COUNTY PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY TRANSFER
Actual Distance 2 Lane Equivalent (Km
REGION
DURHAM Yes 68.7 93.S
HALDIMANO Yes 33.0 34.3
HALTON Yes 19.0 38.0
HAMILTON-WENTWORTH Yes 59.9 69..8
MUSKOKA No 0.0 0.0
NIAGARA Yes 72.0 74.1
OTTAWA-CARLETON. Yes 53.7 55.0
OXFORD Yes 24.6 27.9
PEEL Yes 23.2 34.7
SUDBURY No 0.0 0.0
TORONTO (METRO) Yes 22.2 66.4
WATERLOO No 0.0 0.0
YORK Yes 81.3 162.4
COUNTY
B RANT Yes 64.4 72.4
BRUCE No 0.0 0.0
DUFFERIN Yes 27.8 :27.8
ELGIN Yes 69.4 71.0
ESSEX Yes _ 30.5 30.5
FRONTENAC Yes 167.0 176.6
GREY' No 0.0 0.0
HALIBURTON Yes 44.1 44.1
HASTINGS Yes 114.1 116.8
HURON Yes 72.7 72.7
KENT Yes 32.6 32.6
LAMSTON Yes 97.3 97.3
LANARK Yes 53.9 53.9
LEEDS AND GRENVILLE Yes 94.7 101.8
LENNOX AND ADDINGTON Yes 43.0 43.0
MIDDLESEX Yes 69.8 69.8
NORTHUMBERLAND Yes 66.1 66.7
PERTH Yes 4.7 4.7
PETERBOROUGH Yes 121.4 124.0
PRESCOTT/RUSSELL No 0.0 0.0
PRINCE EDWARD No 0.0 0.0
RENFREW Yes 206.6 206.8
SIMCOE Yes 53.2 53.2
STORMONT D t£ G Yes 72.1 72.1
VICTORIA Yes 115.8 115.8
WELLINGTON Yes 20.1 20.1
TOTAL 2.099.1 2.329.8
For more information on the actual highways to be transferred,
please call the Provincial-Loos/Relations Secretariat at 585-7320
01
i 4 i
SUMMARY OF HIGHWAY TRANSFERS BY REGION
tlrvY.
HWY. hWY. 2 LANE LINK !OF
CONNECTING REGION NO. D/ST EQUN LINK 2 LANE HW
. LOCATION LINK LOCATION DIST. EQUIV LANES
DURHAM 2 15.7 31.4 FROM SCARB/PICKERING TOWN LINE WHITBY(9.45) 21,0 43.2 4
TO OSHAWA E.LIMIT AND OSHAWA(11.5)
DURHAM 2 11.2 11.2 FROM NEWCASTLE E.LIMIT -
TO DURHAM/NORTHUMBERLAND BDRY
DURHAM 7 19.6 19.6 FROM N.JCT.YORWOURHAM BDRY
TO S.JCT.HIGHWAY 7112(BROOKLIN) 2
DURHAM 12 6.6 6.6 FROM WHITBY N.LIMIT
TO HIGHWAY 7 2
DURHAM 2 9.1 16.2 FROM OSHAWA E.LIMIT BOWMANVILLE 3.1 6.3 4
TO BOWMANVILLE E.LIMIT
DURHAM 2 6,1 6.1 FROM BOWMANVILLE E.LIMIT NEWCASTLE
0.5 1.0 2
TO NEWCASTLE E.LIMIT
YORK/DURHAM 7 0.4 0.4 FROM S.JCT.
�-- (RUNS ON BDRY) TO N.JCT.OF YORK/DURHAM BDRY 2
i..:.:Q.....�.".^.�f�liS���.,tu:l1R'��� j'�y��. .� .l•��J .,1f.�'i^/!�{�,���pp }} �+���•'�•r'��`%(t��•.'i'•�1''t'1'�1'•y' M.'!^t!`"�7! y
(� � {.�i>;F:.'.,� I�k.,. tl..... ...it:fnrl:�:......,t.Y.�:N:lk�:i%.k'S: ':l' ':i '{� A7JiAiA'1::.�(IL�fi;�iw.l:/.`:!l''v!•r�1�(i1yl:��"'`,r�.t 'g'1C�'.'.�!1�.
ji�."t,.�.'.�•.Ot'�;a �r m•�+�••S
HALD-NORFOLK 7191 2.
9 4.2 FROM S.JCT.HIGHWAY 6 •
TO N.JCT.HIGHWAY 6 NOT INCL MID-SECTION 214
HALO-NORFOLK 19 3.6 3.6 FROM ELGINIHALO-NORK BDRY.
TO TILLSONSURG S.LIMIT 2
HALD-NORFOLK 24 26.5 26.5 FROM HIGHWAY 59
� r•.•.�>Vv.. vov••.r .•Ka..+r n
TO SIMCOE S.LTS• 2
t'}' T. ...�.r*�.f�.�.+�.nyt.., �C s''`'> �'. .i.'`r:£��"�'y3';+��a•� ��`'(�1t }�" t :' �r.::�.:.. �rx.:
!.!,• 'I b� NUJh i4i. � llt r.. ....E�,�,:..�..y: ;..i'',.',.,`•lilt'r b.. Y>?9,ilL
�. � 7Q ,!�! •• r3`.Sl.'I..l?,..a,�l`ist3.....a.l::,..X.:i.�..t�)i't?�i.�t;s3xlt•?'��t'��. L rYt��
HALTON
5 19.0 38.0 FROM HIGHWAY 403
TO W.OF WALKER'S LINE
4
.tST�►LP4�:Y4 $ i�iia"ir6ii'?Ik�insf1J' s('� . 4i ?
•7f1� i` �1n.� r:xrt. i..u:11et2k.7Y1, �:.: •� s,. t,.;,� r l ,7
HAMILTON/
WENTWORTH 2 2.5 5.0 FROM HAMILTON DR.ANCASTER
TO E.JCT.HIGHWAY 53
HAMILTON/ 2153 6.9 13.6 FROM E.JCT.HIGHWAY 53
WEN-WORTH TO HAM-WENT/BRANT BDRY. 4
HAMILTON/ a 10.1 10.1 FROM HAM-WENTINIAGARA BDRY.
WENTWORTH TO STONEY CREEK E.LIMIT 2
HAMILTON/ 6 6.5 8.5 FROM DUNOAS N.LIMIT
WENTWORTH TO HIGHWAY 5 PETERS CORNERS 2
HAMILTON/ 53 6.2' 6,2 FROM HAMILTON W.LIMIT
C) WENTWORTHI TO E.JCT.HIGHWAY 2 2
HAMILTON/
(V 53 3.7 4.2 FROM HIGHWAY IWAY 20156
WFNTWORTII 2/4
TO STONEY CREFK/lIAMILTON I IMIT
VALUE OF HIGHWAY TRANSFER UNDER PHASE 1 OF DISENTANGLEMENT
Wifil NO CHANGE IN MTO ALLOCATION TO UPPER TIER MUNICIPALITIES
Length of Propolllon Gross 1992 Adjusted 1992 incrsass or Not
hlphwal tanslsr of Value of MTO MTO sNoo. (Decrease)in Value of
(2 Ions sp.) Tansler Trsnsku Allocation IncL lransfsr MID allocation Transfer
COUNIY/REOION km % 3 3 3 $ l
(Al 8 - A 330 C • 8 • 40M D E IF) E - D O .(Cl- F
HE 0IONS:
DURHAM 93.5 4.01% $1.605.266 $6,476,000• $6.243,699 ($232,301) $1,637.569
IIALDIMAND-NORFOLK 34.3 1,47% 666.692 6.722.600 6.660.513 (62.261) 651.179
IIALTON 36.0 1.63% 052.417 4.220,600 4.245.450 24.650 627.766
HAMILTON-WENTWORI 69.6 3.00% 1.166.366 9.672,400 10.071.264 96.664 1.099.502
METRO TORONTO 66.4 2.05% 1.140.012 36.179.000 36.179,000 O 1.140.012
MUSKOKA 0.0 0.00% O 7.059,400 6.705.950 (1.153.450) 1.153.450
NIAGARA 74.1 3,19% 1.272,212 6.970.500 0.629,112 (341.366) 1.613.000
OTTAWA-CARLETON 55.0 2.36% 944.261 26.107.200 22,942.144 (2.165,056) 3.109.343
OXFORD 27.9 1.20% 419,011 2.917.100 3,011.047 93,947 365,064
PEEL 34.7 1.49% 695.759 6.669.300 5.671.171 161.671 413.600
SUDBURY 0.0 0.00% 0 7.776.100 7.240.664 (537,216) 537.216
WATERLOO 0.0 0.00% 0 9,025.400 7.7io.390 . (256.010) 266.oto
r YORK 162.4 6.67% 2.748.222 11.161.600 12.146.671 963.371 1.622.651
COUNTIES
BRANT 1 72.4 3.11% 1.243.025 1,640.200 2,052.066 412.666 030.357
BRUCE 0.0 0.00% 0 3.572.600 3.161,565 (391.215) 391.215
DUFFERIN 27.0 1.19% 477.294 1.146,600 1,355.301 209,701. 267,593
ELGIN 71,0 3.05% 1,216,909 0.206.000 5,725.152 (543.640) 1.762.636
ESSEX 30.5 1.31% 523.650 3. 64.900 3.732.033 147.133 376.517
fRON(t?NAC 170.6 7.56% 3,032.020 2.14,100 3.619,703 1.604.603 1.427,417
GREY 0.0 0.00% 0 6.659.200 5.016.479 (639.721) 639.121
HALIBURTON 44.1 1.69% 757.147 2.996.000 2.911.966 (66.034) 643,160
HASTINGS 110.6 5.01% 2.005.322 4.497,500 4.661.606 164.100 1.041.134
HURON 72.7 3.12% 1.248.176 4.000.100 4,736,351 (61.749) 1.309.925
KENT 32.6 1.40% 359.705 3,629.500 3.600.169 (26.711) 566.416
LAMBTON 97.3 4.10% 1,670.530 2,611.100 3,212.011 341.511 1.329.019
LANARK 53.9 2.31% 925,401 3.476.500 3,676.907 96.407 $26.995
LEEDS AND GRENVILLE 101.6 4.37% 1.747.790 4.705.000 4.970.139 205.139 1.542.651
LE•NNOX AND ADDINGIC 43.0 1.65% 730.261 2,753.100 2.960.005 206.905 531.355
MIDOLESEX 69.6 3.00% 1,196,366 4.923.600 5.462.739 539.139 659.247
NORTIIUMBERLANO 06.7 2.66% 1.145.163 2.137.300 2.415.663 275.563 666.599
PERTH 4.7 0.20% 60.694 2,647.600 2.203.391 (444.209) 524.903
PETERBOROUGH 124.0 5.32% 2.129.936 3.371,100 4.143.567 772.467 1.356,471
PRESCOTTIRUSSELL 0.0 0.00% 0 3.044.700 3.592.920 (251.760) 231.760
PRINCE EDWARD 0.0 0.00% 0 2.551.400 2,340.702 (210.696) 210.696
RENFREW 206.0 6.66% 3.550.519 3.399.600 ••' 4.102.162 762.362 2.766.137
SIMCOE 53.2 2.26% 913.303 4.110,000 4.160.367 51.767 661.590
6TORMONT O 0 G 72.1 3.09% 1.237.674 6.026.100 0.061.042 64.312 1.103.533
VICTORIA 115.6 4.97% 1,960.153 3,605.900 4.434,504 766,004 1.219,550
WELLINGTON 20.1 0.66% 345.064 4.900,500 4.441.710 (544.790) 669.664
TOTAL 2,329.6 100.00% $40.000,000 $236.952.900 $239.652.900 ($0) $40,000.000
0
APPENDIX E
DISENTANGLEMENT PHASE ONE DRAFT
AGREEMENT
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
TRANSFER INFORMATION
- � u77
t0
I6S'056S
069`699'ZZ6`IS
ZZV 5
O dI?IO LOI1
bZ6'S6LS
99i'808'I5£`iS
1K05
jL dv,Na1J v svaNna LNOx-so.L
£Lb'6Z8'ZS
I£9`I9S'Otl'9S
zWt' i
: ;:.:.:. O 30OYVI:
0£L'£96S
6£8`L8S'9Ot'IS
8£L'b9
O:M32I3AI32
ttz'OZ£S
5S8'£OZ'5LSS
bS8`61
0 Qgy/bQ3 30NI2ii
609'9£LS
660`0b9'6LZ`IS
5££`9b
O..11I3SSn2i G&ry LLOOS32Ic
5Z£'588S
989`6L.0'889'IS
T8£'£S
=;`0 HJno?IOff2I3i&
ZI8`99bS
ZWLSeK6S
6S0`LZ
;; '0 H3d
ZZT'610'IS
616'Z8£`880'ZS
5IV65
:`` O C&TV-MaMnEVION
M WS
LI1'866'KI'ZS
856'I5
. ;'::;''O Xna lacm
IVOLVS
OtL`tr9Z'wS
0962
NOIDNIGGYAONN31
8LS USS
ZLb'86L'OTS'IS
£LI`£S
,3' 3TIlAA UD.QNV SQ331
956'9*S
61Z't'8Z`£LO'IS
bLtl t
56£`LO9`IS
£OI'OSZ'Z89'£S
ZZVL8
`. O Np,LgNyZ
ZI9'Z68S
£ZC£5255£6'IS
Z£Z`OS
:'. : 0 .LN3x
LOO'£58S
89Z'SSL`£TS'IS
99I'£S
0 RQHfIH
£T8'8£8S
09S`598bLZ'IS
O£9'55
::°:.0 SJNLLSVH
ti£0'IZSS
£Zti'££1'818S
£II'b£
XJX3 NO.L)InglWH
8LT'650'TS
£86`98S'5n'TS
8L0`89
OAp
LTL'8£6S
9£Z`L£9'Z96'TS
£b6'£S
>:'_: �OdN3,LH02i3
ZaV6S'TS
9£S'LLZ`5LS'£S
W'L8
LW555S
6Z8'£9£'£5I'TS
LWZ£
ZS8'515S
i£0I£i'I£T`TS
ti£8`8Z
?: OI1I2ia3311Q
860'ZZO'IS
tiLS'£LO`£SS'IS
91L`L4
3Of12IS.
6S8`S9£S
IOL'L8£'M
b6V'6r
.L
<;Ot�2iS
;..........:.......... . :..
.. •:'. ��S3LLNf100
8L£`£ZI`IS
909'E"'069'ZS
86Z'6S
::`:<`;:3 Q-dOax0
ZL£'80£`IS
908'£LVEWU
686'IL
�SOxSnj�I
D98`6Z£'LS
£OL'I I6`Z60'9ZS
bIMZ
11 xgplk
6t9'£9£'bS
5W£56'£OI'ZIS
LOeMZ
' '2i:00'I2I3.LYAi
c5b'I99'IS
L£dOOVOLS'£S
Z66'£6
.. .::.2i x?if18Qf1S
:SI'OI8`6S
ftV596'£86'££S
68V'95£
:bL'9LL'8S
88b'5LL'89T'9ZS
V80'ti8£
Nb ..dMv.I.LO
;Sfi'£IS`bS
LOWS 'OS6'OIS
8LO'9£Z
'd.'d pd
:£8'ZLL'9£S
Z91`9IS'55£'L£IS
W'Z8T'I
` `'O.LNOUOJ,Iv.LI'IOd02I.L3W
I1S'£60`5S
068`806'I00'tlS
LZI'IVZ
°. :U HIXOMINV&NO.L'IIW''H
:£0'096`£S
898'L£5'15L'ZTS
ZLL'85I
It NO.L'TVH
IL6'DVIS
88b'SLL'89I'9ZS
b80'b8£
Id X I032iON QNVAI(I IVH
ZI'690S
0I9'168`000'£IS
L50'86I
X )q dH'd na
SNOIJ38
saObVHO LN3"SSaSSV •. salylNa
VOInbas aazmvno3 11011 awYN ,[.,LITYJIOINrlw
1NaNss3ssv. aa1NnOJsla 'IV101
S398VHO 3:DLA83S iN3NSS3SSd
•1
I