HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD-16-00
~'" . .
,
>~ >~
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
.<
REPORT
Date:
March 20, 2000
File # h;z.. 6E'
.
Res. uCllf-J/I-06
,
Meeting:
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Report #:
CD-16-00
By-law #
Subject:
PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT TASK FORCE REPORT
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report CD-16-00 be received;
2. THAT the following recommendations of the Durham POA Task Force
Report be approved;
a) That the Regional Municipality of Durham be selected as the
preferred POA service provider; and,
b) That the recommendation of a 50:50 split of revenues between the
area Municipality and the Region be approved; and,
3. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Memorandum
of Understanding, and the Local Service Agreement;
4. THAT the authorizing By-law be passed at the appropriate time; and,
5. THAT Regional Council be advised of Council's actions.
INCLUDED ATTACHMENTS
1. Durham POA transfer Task Force Status report of March 2, 2000
2. Area Treasurer Group Proposal
BACKGROUND
In late 1996 staff were first made aware of impending changes to the
structure and administration of the Provincial Courts. The Ministry of the
Attorney General advised municipalities that the province intended to get out
of the business of running the courts which dealt with provincial and municipal
pffences.
714
'" ~ ~
Report CD.16.00
.2.
March 20, 2000
All administrative and some prosecutorial functions would be turned over to
the municipal sector along with the revenues generated. The target date for
completion of the transfer was set at spring 2001.
On January 20th 1997 the provincial government introduced Bill 1 08, An Act to
Streamline the Administration of the Provincial Offences Act. The Act,
commonly referred to as the POA, establishes the procedures for
administering and prosecuting provincial offences and municipal by-law
infractions. Bill 108 would download the POA responsibilities to a municipal
partner. The Bill required that all municipalities within the individual court
jurisdiction must agree on a service provider and a formula for sharing the
revenue generated from the courts. The local court area known as the
Oshawa Court Service area (so named because the principle court building
for POA offences is located in Oshawa) encompasses and mirrors the
boundaries of Durham Region.
In September 1997 staff from all the municipalities within the Region first met
to discuss the issue. It was agreed at that time that a special work group
would be established to investigate service delivery options once the Bill was
enacted. At that time staff presented a status report to Council, advising of
the imminent passage of the legislation.
In July 1998 the first meeting of the Durham POA Task Force was held.
Representing the Municipality of Clarington was Len Creamer, the Senior
Municipal Law Enforcement Officer. The Task Force was advised that the
transfer would be phased in across the province as court service areas
became ready. The Ministry of the Attorney General remained adamant that
all the transfers had to be completed and the new administrations up and
running by April 1 , 2001.
715
~ ' ,
,
,
Report CD-16-00
.3-
March 20, 2000
The Act requires that the function of Court Services Provider be transferred to
a local municipality, however it became apparent that this term could be
applied to the local lower tier municipality orthe upper tier county, region or
district which was within (and therefore local to) the court service area. In
practical terms, any of the eight lower municipalities, the Region itself or an
outside independent firm could apply for the position of Court Service
Provider. The Act also required that all users of the court had to be consulted
and all municipal partners had to agree on the terms of the transfer.
In time, three clear contenders for the position of Court Service Provider
emerged. These were the Town (now City) of Pickering, the City of Oshawa
and the Region of Durham. These three became the focus of the Task
Force's deliberations. It was decided to seek an outside independent
consultant to conduct a comprehensive study of all aspects of the proposed
transfer, including facilities, municipal requirements, provincial requirements,
the progress of other transfer areas and most importantly to make
recommendations as to the selection of a service provider and a revenue
sharing formula for the anticipated six million dollars that would flow to the
area municipal partners from the courts.
After many months of consultation and deliberation the consultant's Final
Report has been accepted by the Task Force and the agreed
recommendations are being presented to the councils of each of the
municipal partners for approval or direction. A copy of the consultants report
is available in the Clerk's Department for reference.
The March 3rd Status Report of the Task Force and the Area Treasurers
Group Proposal are included to this report as attachments.
716
~ ' '
<
,
Report CD-16-00
-4-
March 20, 2000
When and if an agreement can be reached, a Memorandum of Understanding
must be signed by all the Municipal Partners and a Local Side Agreement
executed. This Agreement will spell out the details of facilities and staffing for
the courts.
PROPOSALS
The consultant's report presents the criteria and rational used in selecting the
service provider. While all three contenders for the position presented a
strong case, it was felt by seven of the nine members (including Pickering)
that the Region was the logical choice for service provider. Of the two
opposing members, the Whitby representative descented on the grounds that
the Regional Councillors had earlier expressed an intent to see the Region
"slim down" some of its operations. The other negative vote came from
Oshawa who felt they were the best choice, despite the consultant's
evaluation and recommendation.
It should be noted that, while there is a separate fee for the service provider,
the program is intended to be revenue neutral. The service provider will pay
for the court facilities, staffing and equipment and will be compensated for
these costs. There is therefore no economic incentive to increasing
conviction rates and fines. The bulk of the fine revenue is to be split among
all the municipal partners on a formula to be agreed upon by them.
In order to help determine what would be a fair and equitable revenue share
model the Task Force sought the input of the Area Treasurer's Group. The
consultant's four revenue recommendations from his Interim Report were
presented to the Group and they were requested to review them and submit
their opinion.
717
Report CD-16-00
-5-
March 20, 2000
Eight of the nine Treasurers agreed on a formula based on a 50:50 split of
revenues between the area Municipalities and the Region. The net revenue
(after the service provider has been paid their costs) will be split 50% to the
Region and 50% to the eight lower Municipalities, with the distribution based
upon taxable assessment. This formula is outlined in Attachment #3. When
the Treasurers met to prepare their recommendation Oshawa presented and
supported a different model based on a new proposal which the consultant
had included in his final report. This model, referred to as a Stratified Equal
Share, would see each of the southern municipalities and the Region get 15%
of the revenue ($574,200) and the remaining 10% split among the northern
municipalities ( 3.3% each for a total of $126,324) plus the First Nations
Reserve (which would receive 0.1 %, $3828). After considerable discussion
the Treasurers remained divided at eight to one.
It is obvious that the Task Force has been unable to achieve unanimity in
either proposal but there remains a solid consensus. With majority decisions
of seven to two and eight to one, staff are presenting this report and
recommending approval by Council.
Time is now becoming a crucial factor. Experience to date has shown that it
will take six to eight months to actually get the project up and running once all
the agreements have been signed. The project will begin winding down at the
Provincial level in the spring to its deadline date of April 1, 2001. Available
technical support will be slowly withdrawn as the deadline draws near. At its
March 2nd meeting the Task Force heard from Inez Diamond-Gleeson of the
Attorney General's Office and POA Transfer Co-ordinator for the Central East
Region.
718
Report CD-16-00
-6-
March 20, 2000
If unanimity cannot be achieved and the project is not running by April 1st
2001, the current practise would see the entire project, along with the
responsibility for distributing the revenue, turned over to one of the
neighbouring court jurisdictions which are operating. Local municipalities
would lose the right to dictate how their revenue is shared out, how it is spent
and how much the service provider will charge as an administration fee.
Staff believe that an agreement can be reached and are therefore requesting
that Council approve and accept the Consultant's recommendations and
forward a coy of their decision to Regional Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
ranklin Wu M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
If
Attachments
719
ATTACHMENT # 1
DURHAM POA TASK FORCE
STATUS REPORT
As of March 3, 2000
Respectfully submitted by:
Brian Roy
Regional Municipality of Durham
Dave Williams
Town of Ajax
Arlene Smith
Township of Brock
Len Creamer
Municipality of Clarington
Jane Moffatt
City of Oshawa
Jody Parsons
City of Pickering
Kathryn McCann
Township of Scugog
Freda Dykstra
Town of Whitby
Blain Lalonde
Township of Uxbridge
720
PROVINCIAL OFFENCES TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY
Background
Bill 108 (known as the Streamlining of Administration of Provincial Offences Act, 1997)
is legislation which provides the framework for the download of responsibility to the
municipal sector for provincial offences administration and some prosecutorial functions.
This provincial initiative is part of the broader provincial-municipal realignment of
services. The Ministry of the Attorney General ("MAG") expects that the phased-in
transfer of responsibilities to the municipal sector will be completed no later than the
spring of2001. Bill 108 had first and second reading in early 1997 and was proclaimed
in force in June, 1998.
The Provincial Offences Act ("POA") is a procedural law for administering and
prosecuting provincial offences and municipal by-law offences. Provincial offences
prosecuted pursuant to the POA include (for example) the Highway Traffic Act, the
Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, the Trespass to Property Act and the Liquor
Licence Act. Following the transfer of responsibility, the municipal partner will receive
all of the revenue it collects from the fines imposed and will pay the Victim Fine
Surcharge and various other expenses to the Province. There is net revenue to be gained
upon taking on this responsibility.
The Oshawa Court Service area encompasses the geographic area of the region of
Durham. The Region of Durham and all of the local municipalities in Durham must enter
into an intermunicipal service agreement which will define the division of responsibilities
(what entity will provide this service) and the dispersal of net revenue.
The transfer of responsibility is being phased in throughout the Province. The first
transfer occurred in North Bay in March, 1999 and six other initial demonstration sites
were transferred throughout the summer of 1999.
Municipal staff throughout Durham have been actively monitoring the progress of Bill
108 and activities related to transfers throughout the Province. In particular, upon
passage of Bill I 08 in June, 1998 the Durham POA Task Force was convened,
representative ohll of the municipalities in Durham.
The purpose of the task force was to gather and share information as it became available
and to explore the possibility of a coordinated approach among the 9 municipalities in
Durham.
Significant investigations and activities have occurred in the intervening period,
including the retention of a consultant to investigate all aspects of the POA transfer and
to make recommendations.
2
721
The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the activities to date. The current
status of efforts at the staff level to reach agreement with respect to the two most
significant issues ("who" will be the service provider and "how" should the net revenue
be shared), are also reported herein.
CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
Date Activity
Januarv 20, 1997 First reading of Bill 108
Februarv 27, 1997 Second reading of Bill 108
July 28, 1997 Oshawa City Council directed staff to initiate discussion with
neighbouring municipalities to explore the potential of a joint
partnership and to continue to investigate the financial aspects of
the transfer, as information becomes available.
August, 1997 Oshawa staff issued an invitation to municipalities in Du.rham to
attend an information session regarding Bill 108 to determine if
there is the potential to develop a co-ordinated proposal to the
Province and to share and gather further information.
September 3, 1997 Staff from Durham municipalities met and agreed to work
toward a co-ordinated approach. Agreed that a task force be
convened immediately as the legislation (Bill 108) is proclaimed
in force. Province would not release financial information
related to this court service area until the Bill is Dassed.
June 9, 1998 Bill 108 is Dassed.
June II, 1998 Bill 108 is Droclaimed in force.
June 18, 1998 Oshawa staff invite neighbouring municipalities, including the
Region, to form a POA task force, as earlier agreed, consisting
of members hiD of all 9 municiDal Dartners.
July 16, 1998 First meeting of the Durham POA Task Force is held. Mandate
of the task force: to investigate the potential of taking over the
POA courts administration/prosecutions; prepare a full report
with recommendations, on the feasibility of opting into Bill 108;
produce a model to implement the transfer in this area. Province
will implement the transfer in phases, with initial demonstration
sites who will then act as mentors for subsequent sites.
Next action: Region/OttawalClarington have completed
information reports to their respective Councils. The balance of
the area municipalities are encouraged to do the same after
summer recess. Suggested that they seek direction from council
to fully investigate the opportunities presented by Bill 1 08;
approval that staff participate in the Durham POA Task Force
and undertake to report back to Council when further
information is available.
Oshawa will work with MAG to convene a MAG Planning
Session.
SeDtember II, 1998 MAG due date of submissions from municiDalities who wished
3
722
" '.
to be considered as initial POA transfer demonstration sites.
November 5, 1998 MAG Planning Session held for Oshawa Court Service Area.
Session was attended by representatives from each of the area
municipalities, the regional municipality, Durham Regional
Police Services, the senior Regional Justice of the Peace for
Central East Region, the Crown Attorney for the Region of
Durham together with the Regional Operations Manager for
Central East Region/Criminal Law Division - Crown Operations
as well as numerous people from the Central East Region _
Courts Administration. Approximately 40 people in attendance.
Provincial representatives explained the goal of the transfer
project, the terms of the proposed transfer and to generally
describe the nature of the business and operations that are sought
to be transferred to the municipal sector.
NovemberlDecember 1998 Staff within the Region of Durham and Oshawa discussed the
need for a business analysis and due diligence study. Existing
staff constraints prevented municipal staff from conducting such
an extensive study. The Region suggested that a consultant be
retained to perform the study, which could be financed by the
Region from funds available in its Provincial Initiatives
contingency fund.
January 14, 1999 Staff within the area municipalities agreed to hire a consultant to
conduct a comprehensive study. Agreed that a Steering
Committee would be struck to oversee the study. Uxbridge
decides to opt out of active participation on the Steering
Committee, due to staff constraints.
February 10, 1999 Regional Council approves, in principle, the hiring of a
consultant.
February 19, 1999 First meeting of the Durham POA Steering Committee held.
RFP process overviewed. The study is to be commissioned by
the Region and the area municipalities. Oshawa volunteers to
draft the RFP, together with the Region.
March 10, 1999 Steering Committee meeting. Reviewed and finalized the RFP.
March 15,1999 The first POA transfer in Ontario is implemented in North Bay.
March 24, 1999 Rtlgional Council approves the budget for the consulting proiect.
March 30, 1999 RFP is released.
April 12, 1999 RFP briefing session held for interested respondents.
April 19, 1999 RFP proposals are opened.
May 4, 1999 Steering Committee meeting. Proposals (received from KPMG,
IBI and PSTG) are overviewed. An RFP evaluation team is
struck consisting of staff from the Region, Ajax and Oshawa.
Oshawa volunteers and is appointed as the Project Coordinator.
The Region will be responsible for payment of consultant's
invoices in consultation with Oshawa.
May 12, 1999 First meeting of the RFP evaluation team.
May 18, 1999 Two consulting firms are interviewed.
~
723
v
May 27, 1999 Steering Committee meeting. Evaluation team recommends
retaining PSTG to perfonn the studv Agreed
June 24, 1999 Steering Committee meeting. "Kick off' meeting with the
consultant. Approved the consulting project work plan with
timelines and milestones. The extensive stakeholder
consultation will occur over the summer; intennediate discussion
paper due September 15, 1999 and final report due October 15,
1999.
August 11, 1999 Steering Committee meeting. Consultant provided update on
I orogress to date.
September 8, 1999 Consultant delivers draft interim report to Steering Committee
members.
Seotember 9, 1999 Steering Committee meetiml. Draft interim reoort discussed.
Seotember 15, 1999 Consultant delivers draft interim renort.
September 30, 1999 Steering Committee meeting. Discussed draft interim report.
Further input provided to consultant. Agreed that a further draft
report is to be prepared before it is finalized. Agreed to obtain
input from the area treasurers regarding the revenue distribution
Issue.
October 6, 1999 Consultant distributes draft revenue distribution section of the
report to Steering Committee members.
October 13, 1999 Consultant releases draft final report to Steering Committee
members.
October 14, 1999 Steering Committee meeting. Agreed that each municipality
will prepare written comments/feedback regarding the draft
report, for consideration by the consultant. A further draft report
will be produced thereafter. Timelines necessarilv extended.
October 28, 1999 Steering Committee meeting (in the absence of the consultant).
Draft report reviewed and agreed that written comments from
each municipality would be delivered to the consultant
individually by November 5, 1999. The consultant will
comolete the reoort, in further draft, thereafter.
November 9, 1999 Treasurers agree to hold further discussion regarding the revenue
distribution issue, pending receipt of the draft final consultant's
reoort.
November 16, 1999 Consultant delivers further draft final report to Steering
Committee members.
December 16, 1999 Steering Committee meeting. Reviewed draft final report.
Awaiting feedback from treasurers.
January, 2000 Regional Council resolves that the POA issue is to be finalized
by April 1, 2000 with an implementation target date of April I,
2001. Several local councils oass similar resolutions.
January 14,2000 . Area treasurers meet together with the consultant and several of
the Steering Committee members, Consultant will now finalize
the report. Treasurers agree to continue to meet in an attempt to
agree on a revenue sharing model, indeoendent of the consulting
5
724
v
, oroiect.
February 7.2000 Consultant delivers final reoort to Steering Committee members.
February 17,2000 POA Task Force meeting. Staff from Uxbridge (who had
continued to receive updates from the Steering Committee),
rejoins the discussions. Final report discussed and accepted as
having fulfilled the terms of the consulting project. Results of
area treasurers review of the revenue share issue discussed.
Views are sought with respect to the recommendations and
positions on behalf of each municipality. Result: consensus, but
no unanimous agreement. Agreed to meet in 2 weeks to finalize
a status report of the Steering Committee.
March 2, 2000 POA Task Force meeting. Head of transfer project for MAG
updates committee on transfer status throughout the Province
and impresses upon committee the need to move this issue
forward. Durham POA Task Force Status report discussed and
final ized.
CONSULTANT'S REPORT - Terms of Reference
The following is a description of the consulting project, as provided in the RFP:
PHASE 1
3.1 An overview, assessment and analysis of existing andfuture service
requirements for POA in the Oshawa Court Service Area, including analysis of
costs/revenue and undertaking a key stakeholder consultation.
· Conduct a consultation process with key stakeholders, identified as being:
· Regional Municipality of Durham
· local municipalities in Durham
· Durham Regional Police Service
· Ministry of the Attorney General (current service provider)
· existing courts administration and crown operation (both provincial and
criminal)
Consultation is also expected with the existing municipal demonstration sites
currently being phased into the transfer of POA responsibility in Ontario.
· Review and analyze both the projected costs and revenue stream provided by the
Ministry of the Attorney General for the Oshawa Court Service Area and report on its
thoroughness, accuracy and any shortcomings.
· Review, identify and assess each of the components of an "as is" seamless transfer,
including assessment of all facility, human resource and technological issues.
· Review and assess the existing municipal ability and readiness 10 assume POA
responsibilities, which will include assessment of their existing facility. management
and technological resources required of a primary service provider.
6
725
3.2 Identify and analyze service delivery options
· Provide options with respect to primary service delivery. revenue and cost sharing
arrangements between the municipal partners, and identification oj opportunities to
share resources across the court service area and to reduce capital and operating
costs. Pros and cons oj each option should be provided
3.3 Recommend a preferred option
· Recommend and support a prejerred service delivery option, including the
recommended terms oj an intermunicipal service agreement.
· Recommend a Corporate and Transitional Management Structure to manage the
transjer oj responsibilities that will ensure that the integrity oj the justice system is
not compromised and service levels are not reduced
PHASE 2
3.4 Submission of ProfJosal
. Prepare an application and submission to the Province (which meets the Provincial
criteria) on behalf oj the municipal partnership, upon approval oj a prejerred option
by the regional and local municipal councils. The work contemplated in Phase 2 will
be undertaken by the successful bidder at the option of the Region, in consultation
with the local municipalities.
CONSULTANT'S REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS
The consultant has completed Phase I of the consulting project upon delivery of its final
report dated January 31,2000, a copy of which is annexed as Attachment No.1.
The consultant's report is broken down into seven areas:
I. Introduction
2. POA Activity Volumes
3. Projected Costs and Revenues
4. Revenue Sharing Options
5. Service Delivery Options
6. Transition Components
7. Recommendations
The significant conclusions contained in the study are summarized below.
7
726
Proiected Costs and Revenues
In order to analyze the risks associated with the transfer, a full review has been completed
with respect to anticipated revenue and costs associated with the provision of this service.
For 2000, gross revenue is projected to be approximately $6,000,000. Costs are estimated
at $2,200,000 with a net revenue potential of $3,800,000. Gross annual revenue is
projected to be approximately $7,600,000 by the year 2005.
The accuracy of the cost and revenue estimates are considered to be high. Due to the
estimated margin between current costs and revenues, the risk to receiving declining net
revenues is considered low.
Revenue Sharing Ootions
The consultant has examined various revenue sharing options with a view that the service
provider would receive no more or less than if they were not the service provider. This
would presumably minimize the competition to be the service provider between
municipalities. The service provider would be compensated for its costs and the balance
would be distributed based upon an agreed upon revenue distribution model. All nine
municipalities, through their respective Councils, must agree on the revenue share and
service provider issues.
Five models have been examined and the consultant has also obtained feedback from the
area treasurers in Durham region. Independent of the consulting project, the area
treasurers have continued to meet in an attempt to achieve consensus on a revenue share
model that they would be comfortable recommending to their respective Councils. This
issue is discussed further within this report. The consultant has identified that the
greatest risk to the municipalities in relation to this project is that they will not be able to
unanimously agree on the service provider or revenue share issues.
The consultant has recommended a Stratified Equal Share model of revenue distribution.
This model provides that all of the urban municipalities and the regional municipality will
equally receive 15% of the net revenue and the northern municipalities would share
together in 10% of the net revenue (reflective of their more minor role in terms of
population and volume of infractions). The consultant concluded in his report that the
possible variations of revenue share formulas are endless.
The consultant states that: "In order to support the process and formula as being fair and
equitable, stratification addresses the fairness requirement and the equal distributions
between types of partners addresses the equitability. This also puts one recommendation
forward to try and 1) get council agreement and 2) develop a submission to the Ministry."
8
727
Service Provider Ootions
The consultant has reviewed each municipality's ability and willingness to provide this
service. The various options examined include:
-the Region as the sole service provider (Option A)
-Oshawa as the sole service provider (Option B)
-Pickering as the sole service provider (Option C)
-the Region together with either Oshawa or Pickering (joint) (Option D)
-Oshawa and Pickering (joint) (Option E)
-Private sector firm (Option F)
The quantitative evaluation resulted in the Region (Option A) as achieving the highest
score, with the Region and OshawalPickering (Option D) being second, Oshawa (Option
B) as third and Pickering (Option C) as fourth.
The consultant states in the report: "As was apparent in the description section there is not
a large difference in operational capability between the options. There is less than a 10
percent difference between the Regional (Option A), Oshawa (Option B) and Regional
with PickeringlOshawa (Option D) options."
The consultant concludes:
"Our objective recommendation is for the POA Task Force to put forward to the
municipal councils that the Region of Durham be the service provider for the
Durham region POA administration. This recognizes that the quantitative
evaluation provides only a slight marginal preference to the Region of Durham,
and the difficulty in measuring the more intangible or out of scope issues."
The consultant also recommends that in the event municipalities cannot agree on the
preferred POA service provider, that they prepare and release an internal tender for the
interested potential service providers to bid. The municipalities could choose to limit
invitation to bid to those interested municipalities in Durham, or they could choose to
include any interested party. An independent, objective third party would be required to
manage the process.
The final option put forward by the consultant is to "do nothing". The consultant states:
"If the councils of the Region of Durham and area municipalities cannot quickly
reach an agreement, another option would be to "do nothing". This will leave the
decisions to the Ministry to select the service provider (from inside or outside of
Durham) and to define the distribution formula. The impact of this direction
would still be having the POA administration transferred and could result in
reduced control of the operations and less than optimal revenue distribution"
9
728
Consensus by the treasurers regarding revenue share options
The area treasurers of all 9 municipalities within Durham have debated the most suitable
model of net revenue distribution.
At the POA Task Force meeting of February 17, 2000, the treasurer from Clarington
presented a written recommendation to the Task Force regarding revenue share, endorsed
by 8 of the 9 treasurers in Durham (Oshawa dissenting). For ease of reference, this
model is known as the 50:50 model. A copy of the 8 treasurers' recommendation is
annexed as Attachment No.2.
Staff within Oshawa have not endorsed the recommendation by the other 8 area
treasurers. Rather, Oshawa staff prefer the Stratified Equal Share model recommended
by the consultant. At the POA Task Force meeting of February 17, 2000, Oshawa
presented its written dissenting opinion to the Task Force regarding revenue share. A
copy of Os haw a's written opinion is annexed as Attachment No.3.
EFFORTS AT STAFF LEVEL TO ACHIEVE UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT
Many or all of the POA Task Force members have consulted with treasurers and senior
management within their respective municipalities with respect to their position regarding
the service provider and revenue share issues.
At the POA Task Force meeting of February 17,2000, members were canvassed with
respect to their position on behalf of their municipality. The results were as follows:
Revenue Share
The consultant has recommended a Stratified Equal Share model of net revenue
distribution:
-Oshawa supports the revenue share recommendation of the consultant.
-The balance of the members (8 of 9) chose to support a different model on the
advice of their respective treasurers, being a 50:50 revenue share model.
Service Provider
The consultant has recommended that the Region be the sole service provider:
-7 of 9 members support the service provider recommendation of the consultant.
-2 of9 (namely Oshawa, Whitby) support Oshawa as the service provider.
729
10
, .
STATUS UPDATE BY MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
At the Durham POA Task Force meeting of March 2,2000, various representatives from
the POA Transfer Project of the Ministry of the Attorney General attended to provide an
update on the POA transfers throughout the Province and to answer any questions
members may have.
The Ministry of the Attorney General intends to complete all voluntary POA transfers by
March, 2001. Consequently, submissions to undertake this responsibility should be
delivered to the Ministry by the quarterly submission due date of either mid June or, at
the latest, mid September, 2000. Transfer activities prior to implementation will occur
over a 4 to 8 month period, following submission. Annexed as Attachment NO.4 is a
map which graphically illustrates the status of PO A transfers in Ontario, as of March 31,
2000.
The MAG POA Transfer Project will wind down leading up to March, 200 I. The longer
it takes for submissions and transfers to occur, the greater is the likelihood that less
resources and support will be available from MAG to facilitate the process. MAG
representatives have indicated that a status report on the transfer project will likely be
submitted to Cabinet in June, 2000.
Specifically, MAG representatives were asked what would happen if this court service
area has failed to move forward with a submission within the voluntary transfer time
frame. MAG representatives indicated that the current policy is that in those
circumstances the provision of this service would be offered to a neighbouring,
established municipal partner. MAG representatives declined at this time to answer a
direct question as to what would happen to the net fine revenue, in that event.
The Durham POA Task Force consequently reports that it must be recognized that there
is uncertainty and therefore potential risk that if the service provider is appointed from
outside of Durham, the revenue which would flow may also be directed outside of
Durham.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DURHAM POA TASK FORCE
I. Durham POA Task Force members from The Regional Municipality of Durham,
Town of Ajax, Township of Brock, Municipality ofClarington, City of Pickering,
Township of Scugog, and Township ofUxbridge endorse the recommendation of
the consultant that the Region of Durham be selected as the preferred POA
service provider.
2. Durham POA Task Force members from The Regional Municipality of Durham,
Town of Ajax, Township of Brock, Municipality ofClarington, City of Pickering,
Township of Scugog, Township ofUxbridge and Town of Whitby endorse the 8
11
730
Treasurers' recommendation on revenue sharing annexed as Attachment 2 to this
report.
3. The Durham POA Task Force members from the municipalities identified in I
and 2 above, hereby undertake to put forward for approval by their respective
Councils the recommendations endorsed by them in I and 2 above.
4. All Task Force members, with the exception of The Regional Municipality of
Durham, shall use their best efforts to report to their respective Councils as soon
as reasonably possible, but in any event no later than the end of March, 2000.
5. The Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby requested to await the reporting
outlined in 4 above prior to a report being submitted to Regional Council for
approval of the recommendations endorsed by its Task Force member as set out in
1 and 2 above.
Brian Roy
Regional Municipality of Durham
Dave Williams
Town of Ajax
Arlene Smith
Township of Brock
Len Creamer
Municipality of Clarington
Jane Moffatt
City of Oshawa
Jody Parsons
City of Pickering
12
731
Kathryn McCann
Township of Scugog
Freda Dykstra
Town of Whitby
Blain Lalonde
Township ofUxbridge
13
732
ATTACIIMENT fI2
. .
TO: The Durham POA Task Force Steering Commi[[ee
February 16,2000
FROM: G. Kirkbride, Treasurer, Town of Ajax
M. Shier. Treasurer, Township of Brock
M. Marano, Treasurer, Municipality of Clarington
G. Paterson. Treasurer, City of Pickering
K. McCann, Treasurer, Township of Scugog
R. Mitchell, Treasurer. Township of Uxbridge
K. Nix, Treasurer, Town of Whitby
R.J. Clapp. Commissioner of Finance, Regional Municipality of Durham
RE: Provindal Offences Act (POA) Preferred Revenue Distribution Fonnula
The POA Task Force Steering Committee forwarded the decision on POA revenue dislJ'ibution to
the Regional and Area Treasurers, as noted on page 18 of PSTG Consulting's November 16, 1999
second draft, "Final Repon for the Transfer of the AdministraTion of the Provincial Offences Act
in the Region of Durham. ..
The Treasurers of Ajax, Brock, Clarington. Pickering, Scugog, Uxbridge, Whitby and the Region
of Durham are pleased to inform the Steering Committee that a consens us opinion has been
reached amongst these eight Treasurers regarding the most appropriate formula for the
dislJ'ibution of net POA revenues. The Treasurer's Group did not consider the issue of which
entity should become the POA service provider. Also, although the staff of the City of Oshawa
did participate in the discussions on POA revenue dislJ'ibution, they chose not to agree with the
recommendation offered herein.
Since the January 14. 2000 Area Treasurers meeting, attended by Rick Finlay of PTSG
Consulting and representatives of !he Steering Committee, the nine Treasurers of Durham have
met and considered over a dozen variations on how net revenues could be shared amongst !he
municipal panners. It was clear thar there was no limit to the number of revenue sharing options
:\Vailable.
Although there were many constructive ideas brought forward, the eight Treasurers making this
submission agreed upon a compromise, which is both fair and very easy to administer. As
demonsrrated in the attached table. the consensus reached amongst the eight Area Treasurers is
that Mt POA revenues. after DaYrnent of costs to the senrice orovider, should be split 50% to the
Region and 50% to the Area Municipalities. Furthermore, the Area Municipal share should be
distributed amongst the eight lower tier municipalities based upon taxable assessment. The
benefits of the Regional share would also flow back to the local taxpayers of each Area
Municipality based upon taxable assessment.
Underlying the decision, it was agreed that both the upper and lower tiers should benefit from
POA revenues since the entire population of !he Region pays taxes to both tiers and surplus POA
revenues should alleviate costs for taxpayer services provided by both levels. Any formula
supponed should have a quantifiable. measurable base but should not be so complicated that the
methodology adds significantly to administrative costs. The 50:50 formula meets all of these
criteria, while providing close to I % of tax revenues to each AIea Municipality and to the Region.
Using the same criteria. the eight Treasurers making this submission came to the conclusion !hat
the four options presented by the consultant's report were not acceptable. Three of the
consultant's scenarios provide the Region with only a one-nin!h share, or only 11% of the net
733
POA revenues. and the fourth consult~nc scenario provides the eight Area Municipalities with a
39% share. It was fele the distribution beeween Are~ Municipalities and the Region should be
more balanced than these extremes and these four options were dropped from further
consideraeion.
The eight treasurers would also like [0 express the group's concern over the consultant's
presencat;on and recommendation of an "eleventh hour" revenue distribution option in his final
report, after the issue of revenue distribution had already been referred to the Treasurer's Group.
Although the "Taxpayer Perspective" option originated within our group, we had insufficient
time to dissect the new "Stratified Equal Share" option recommended by the consultant.
However, since it results in an unfair distribution of revenues. similar [0 the one-ninth fannula,
we also rejected this option and continue to PUI our support behind the 50:50 option.
In reviewing the consultant's report. the Treasurers would also like to voice concern over the
possibility of net POA revenues being earmarked for capital COSts incWTed by the Police or other
Justice Partners, under the umbrella of the Integrated Justice Project (UP). For example, the
consultant recommends an initial investment of $1.3 million be deducted from gross POA
revenues in 2000 to pay for "handheld field data input devices" for the Durham Regional Police
Service. This investment, and others envisioned by the UP partners (police, Crown Attorneys,
Corrections, Courts and four private sector companies), may provide benefits over the entire
justice system. However. il would be an unacceptable precedent to charge 100% of the capital
costs for new Police equipment to a new POA courts administration, regardless of whether there
were spin-off benefits available. Any agency purchasing new equipmenc, Whether it be the
Police. Crown Attorney's office, Corrections, Courts or the new POA administration, should be
required to justify its OWn capital and operating e"penditures within its own budgetary process.
It is ~nticipated that this submission will assist the Steering Committee in finalizing its decision
on the appropriate POA revenue distribution formula. If there are questions or concerns please
feel free to cOl\tact any of the ndersigned Treasurer;.
/..
D
~C:-~
r G. Xi:kbride, Treasurer
To"",of .
1~..J r 2J. ;_
M. hi t, TreUURr
To"'n~h.ip of Brock
~?x~~~_.
G. Paterson, Treuurer
City of Pil:k.rinr
no. Treuurer
~ MunicipaUry of Cl2rin~ton
r[
~-P,,~
'R.1. Clapp
Regional Municipality of Durham
cc:
B.1. Roy, Regional Solicitor
Nelson Tellis. Tre~surer, City of Oshawa
page 2012
734
"
PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF PROVINCIAL OFFENCE REVENUES IN THE REGION OF DURHAM
"
50:50 Split of the Net POA Revenues Between the Region and Area Municipalities: Distribution To Area Municipalities
Based On Taxable Assessment
Description:
The Net POA Revenues, after paying
Municipalities, wilh the distribution to t
the cosls to the service provider, are split 50% to the Region and 50% 10 the eight Area
he Area MunicipalUles based upon taxable assessment
Oshawa Alax Clarlnalon Plckerina Whilbv ~ SCUQCIG Uxbridae Total
Weighted Assessmenl ($millions) (_11 $ 8,856 $ 4,607 S 4,004 $ 6,226 $ 5,668 $ 667 S 1,306 $ 1,300 $ 32.6""
% ot Weighled Assessment 27.1% 14.1% 12.3% 19.1% 17.4% 2.1% 4.0% 4.0% 100.0%
Total POA Revenue Distributed Annually
Annual Reduction in Regional Tax Levy 12) $ 519,102 $ 270,043 $ 234,698 $ 364,942 S 332,235 $ 40,269 $ 76,552 $ 76,201 $ 1,914,042
-~lIocated 10 Municipalities (3) $ 519,102 $ 270,043 $ 234,698 $ 364 ,942 $ 332,235 $ 40,269 $ 76.552 $ 76,201 $ 1,914.042
IN
LJt 101allo Tax","yers, $ 1,038,204 $ 540,086 $ 469,396 $ 729,884 $ 664,469 $ 80,538 $ 153,105 $ 152,401 $ 3,828.083
Notes :
(1) Weighted assessment is based upon 1999 a ssessment roll as relurned for 2000 lax purposes, inclUding PILs.
(2) The Area Municipal share and the Regional share are equivalent 10 50% 01 the net Incremental revenues. The 2000 incremental nel revenues are estimated
at $3,828,083, or gross revenues of $5,990, 083 (page 9 of the consullanl's report) minus estimated 2000 costs ot $2,162,000 (page 7 oflhe consullarlt's report).
The Area Municipal share and the Region's s hare are therefore bolh equal to $1,914,042. The allocation of the Region's share to each Area Municipality is
based on taxable assessment
(3) The amount allocated direclly to Area MUrlici pal~ies ($1,914,042) arld is distributed amongst the eight Area Municipalities based upon taxable assessment.
(4) Tolals may not add due to rounding
February 16, 2000
page 3 of 3