The URL can be used to link to this page

January 13, 2009 Agenda ORDERS OF THE DA Y SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED 2009 BUDGET FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009- 10:00 A.M. PAGE # ORDER Meeting Called to Order Adoption of Minutes Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations Motion to Move into "Committee Of The Whole Council" Reports of Council, Outside Boards and Staff Review of PowerPoint Budget Presentation - Chief Administrative Officer and Director of Financial Services (Attached) Council Correspondence - see attached 1) Items for Consideration 2) Items for Information (Consent Agenda) OTHER BUSINESS 1) Statementsllnquiries by Members 2) Notice of Motion 3) Matters of Urgency 10th Closed Meeting Items (see separate agenda) 11th Recess 12th Motion to Rise and Report 13th Motion to Adopt Recommendations from the Committee Of The Whole 14th Consideration of By-Laws 15th ADJOURNMENT 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1-24 7th 8th 25-33 34-41 9th LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED NOTICE: January 27,2009 February 17,2009 February 22-25, 2009 - 9:00 a.m. - County Council Meeting - 9:00 a.m. - County Council Meeting - 2009 ROMAlOGRA Conference (Fairmont Royal York - Toronto) SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING ON JANUARY 13TH, 2009 2009 AND 2010 BUDGET DISCUSSION 1 - THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO DISCUSS THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR 2009 AND 2010 - THE INITIAL DRAFT BUDGET WAS AN INCREASE OF 7.6% OR 1.7 MILLION - THE CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASE IS 4.9% OR $1.1 MILLION - DOES COUNCIL HAVE A TARGET? A!!!';c ~ /mg7nC:ount y 2 - COUNCIL, ANTICIPATING THE BUDGET CRUNCH, HAS ALREADY MADE POSITIVE DECISIONS IN 2008 THAT HAS HELPED REDUCE THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN 2009 - 1) REDUCED SENIOR MANAGEMENT BY TWO POSITIONS (FROM 9 TO 7) - 2) THROUGH THOUGHTFUL SUCCESSION PLANNING RESTRUCTURED LIBRARY MANAGER POSITION AND ELIMINATED MANAGER OF LIBRARY SERVICES JOB - 3) HUMAN RESOURCES DOWNSIZED BY 1f2 POSITION - 4) CASE MIX INDEX INCREASED IN ALL THREE HOMES DUE TO CONTINUED DILIGENT DOCUMENTATION A"" ~L~' Elgmc;'Ul1t)' 3 - Mileage rates frozen at 2008 level - Paramedic contract renewal best in the SW in terms of percentage increase when compared to other settlements /!is''> ~, /El;;;C'()lIllly 4 ~O'"; d '%, _'1 __ ElgmCounly 5 II 2009 Benefit of Social Programs Upload o Additonal Funding Provided o OMPF Funding II CRF Payments Ili!l Revenue/Other Benefits & ~ /E1~(\)unty ~^~ -~ 6 .rJ $6,000 ~ $5,000 0 i5 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 2004 2008 . Social Housing o Child Care o Admin Fee - City of Sl. Thomas .2009 Costs for Uploaded Social Programs GJ Social Services&Ontario Works 2009 /!!i'" ~ ;,,;,,~.' , E1gmCount y 7 TotalOMPF $5,841 $5,841 $5,889 Less Social Costs $3,983 $3,993 $5,204 - Net Revenue $1,858 $1,848 $ 685 J $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1.400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 2004 2008 2009 &' f!!J Net Revenue "-"" ElgmCollnly 8 - SOCIAL COSTS ARE ESTIMATED TO INCREASE BY $1.2 MILLION OR 5.4% IN 2009 - OMPF FUNDING IS DECREASING BY THE AMOUNT OF PROGRAM COSTS BEING UPLOADED - OMPF FUNDING IS NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INCREASING SOCIAL COSTS BEING INCURRED BY OUR HARD HIT COUNTY AS A RESULT OF THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN - PROVINCE RECOGNIZES NEED TO UPLOAD ONTARIO WORKS COSTS, BUT WILL NOT FULLY DO SO UNTIL 2018 ;t!i7c'" ~ ~1 /El~'ollnIY 9 - INCREASING ONTARIO WORKS COSTS IN 2009 ESTIMATED AT $1.0 MILLION - 2010 WHEN FULL IMPACT OF STERLING TRUCK AND OTHER MANUFACTURING CLOSURES IS FELT, COULD INCREASE ONTARIO WORKS COSTS BY ANOTHER 30% ($0.9 MILLION) At ~~\ ElglOCounl y 10 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 '" 2.0 c: ~ ~ 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Upload: : 3% 6% 14% 29% 43% 57% o Provincial Share of Increase o Elgin Rate Payer share of Increase III Provincial Share of 2008 Level OW Costs D Elgin Share of 2008 Level OW Costs 2016 2017 2018 71% 86% 100% d~ 4...-'1 ElgmCouniy 11 - ONTARIO MUNICIPAL PARTNERSHIP FUND REDUCTION - OVER $3 MILLION TO BE REMOVED - UNCERTAIN AS TO SCHEDULE OF REDUCTION - WON'T KNOW UNTIL SPRING - PERHAPS REDUCED BY AMOUNT OF THE UPLOAD EACH YEAR - MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTER OF FINANCE IN THE OFFING ~)UnlY 12 - 2008 ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT 100% (ELGIN'S OMPF WAS REDUCED BY THE UPLOAD $612,000) - 2009 ONTARIO DISABLlLlTY SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION COSTS 100% UPLOAD - 2009-2011 ODSP 90% UPLOAD - 2012-2018 COURT SECURITY UPLOADED (NO IMPACT ON ELGIN) - SINCE 2003 HEALTH UNIT COSTS UPLOADED TO 75% ~'2 ,--0,<,\ ~c , ElgmCounly 13 - CAPITAL FUNDING FOR TALBOT LINE OF OVER $9 MILLION RECEIVED (GAS TAX, MOVE ONTARIO, INVESTING IN ONTARIO) - CAPITAL FUNDING FOR NEW SARUM AND BLACK BRIDGES AND SUNSET ROAD OF OVER $7 MILLION (COMRIF, RURAL INVESTMENT INITIATIVE) - BY 2016 OMPF WILL DECLINE PROVINCE WIDE FROM $704 MILLION TO $500 MILLION ~~nlI1[Y ~ 14 - HEALTH UNIT LEASE TO BE NEGOTIATED - EXPIRES APRIL 30TH, 2010 Afi>;',~ $" ElgmC'olllll y '_'0' 15 - GRANT TO HOSPITAL REMAINS UNDECIDED ($1M) - ROAD NEEDS STUDY AND MAINTENANCE STUDY EXPECTED TO RECOMMEND MORE COSTS (REPORT DUE IN FEBRUARY) - TOURISM DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING PLAN EXPECTED TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS IN MARCH THAT WILL REQUIRE FUNDING - RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT UP 7% ACROSS COUNTY ON AVERAGE HOME ASSESSED AT $200,000 A!!;'" ~~7:'llntY ... 16 Reslclenliallmpact 2008 2009 % Change 7.6% Total La Increase current draft bud at and avera e assessment increase Tax Rate 0.583075% 0.598652% 2.7% Assessment (Average Home) $186,915 $1,090 $107 Tax Levy Residential Average Home Tax Levy Increase $200,000 $1,197 7.6% Total La Increase current draft bud t and no assessment increase Tax Rate 0.583075% 0.598652% 2.7% Assessment (Average Home) $186,915 $1,090 $29 Tax Levy ResioontialAverage Home Tax Levy Increase ""-~ $186,915 $1,119 A"g;;.:.:.:.:.. ~)UnIY 7.0% 9.9% 1.3% 2.7% 17 Residential Impact 2008 2009 % Change Avera Assessment Increase Tax Rate 0.0% 0.583075% 0.583263% $186,915 $200,000 $1,090 $1,167 $77 0.583075% 0.583263% $186,915 $186,915 $1,090 $1,090 $0 0.0% Assessment (Average Home) 7.0% Tax Levy 7.0% ResldentialAverage Home Tax Levy Increase No Assessment Increase Tax Rate 0.0% Assessment (Average Home) 0.0% Tax Levy ResldentialAverage Home Tax Levy Increase Afj!iii . ~, /El~'()UnlY ."'Wi. 18 Resldenliallmpacl 2008 2009 % Change Avera e Assessment Increase Tax Rate 0.583075% 0.572177% -1.9% .Assessment (Average Home) $186,915 $200,000 7.0% Tax Levy $1,090 $1,144 5.0% ResidentialAverage Home Tax Levy Increase $54 No Assessment Increase Tax Rate 0.583075% 0.572177% -1.9% .Assessment (Average Home) $186,915 $186,915 0.0% Tax Levy $1,090 $1,069 5.0% ResidenlialAverage Home Tax Levy DECREASE $20 d;;~=%~ '--~ ElglllCOllllly 19 - MORATORIUM ON GRANTS? - SERVICE CUTS? - HUMAN RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS (SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN-CAMERA) - DISCRETIONARY SPENDING IN DEPARTMENTS has been reduced-TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT, SUPPLIES ETC - COUNCILS CONVENTION ACCOUNT AND MEMBERSHIPS (ARE REDUCTIONS NECESSARY?) FCM MEMBERSHIP IS $6,100 AND DRAFT BUDGET FOR COUNCIL CONVENTIONS WAS INCREASED BY $21,000) ~fE' j ~~(,), ~1 ElgmCoullly 20 - TRANSFERS TO RESERVES (HOW FAR DO WE REDUCE?) - FOR EXAMPLE, THE TERRACE LODGE REBUILD RESERVE HAS BEEN REDUCED BUT FUNDING FOR "C" FACILITIES NOW AVAILABLE - THE TRANSFER TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT INCREASE OF $iOO,OOO IS ONLY i.5% (BELOW THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION OF 5% ANNUALLY PASSED MAY 2008) - BE PREPARED TO CONTRIBUTE TO SHARED INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS- we should be ready for the economic stimulus and investment Ai, ~ /El~'(lunIY ~;... 21 -IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT MAJOR GOVERNMENTS ARE STIMULATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY BY SPENDING ON INFRASTRUCTURE - CHINA $568 BILLION - UNITED STATES EXPECTED TO SPEND $1.3 TRILLION IN NEXT TWO YEARS - EVEN ONTARIO GOVERNMENT HINTING AT RUNNING A DEFICIT TO ADDRESS INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS - CORPORATE AND OTHER TAX REDUCTIONS WILL BE COMPLETED AS WELL ~;c""\ ~1 Elgm('ollllly 22 - HUMAN RESOURCES OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS REGARDING IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUALS - (MARK Will SHOW AN IN-CAMERA PRESENTATION) AiL> ~'1 /El~:()unty 23 - DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION(S) FROM COUNCIL ~L_"" "--\ EIgmCoulll)' 24 CORRESPONDENCE - Januarv 13.2009 Items for Consideration 1. AMO Member Communication ALERT, URGENT - Ontario's Municipal Leadership in Federal Budget Consultation (ATTACHED) 2S- ~~. iii . M.sociOllion of MunidpJliliC1 of Ont.nlo 200 UnIversity Ave, Suite 801 Toronto, ON M5H 3C6 Tel.: (416) 971-9856 I Fax: (416) 97H191 E~mail: amo@amo.on.ca MEMBER COMMUNICATION ALERT NO: 08/062 To the attention of the Clerk and Council FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rosborough, AMO Director of Policy (416) 971.9856 ex! 318 December 15, 2008 URGENT - Ontario's Municipal Leadership in Federal Budget Consultations Issue: The federal government is undertaking consultations with Canadians in advance of its planned January 2009 Budget. Consultations are being undertaken by the Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, which will include a discussion of measures intended to stimulate the economy. Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Minister John Baird will also be consulting on how to accelerate infrastructure funding within the federal Building Canada Fund (BCF) to improve infrastructure and create jobs in all parts of Canada. AMO member municipal governments are encouraged to add their voices to these consultations. Background: AMO met with Minister Baird in November to discuss ways to accelerate BCF Funding and followed up with a detailed letter to Minister Baird on December 4, 2008, which is attached for your information. The letter included options that AMO believes will best help to accelerate current BCF investments in infrastructure: 1. Increase the amount of funding for the current $200 million intake of the BCF Communities Component in Ontario (for communities under 100,000 population) which closed in late November; 2. Use BCF to support asset renewal projects that can be implemented quickly - not limiting funding to new projects; 3. Initiate an open call for proposals for the BCF Major Projects category intended for projects exceeding $30 million; 4. Use Federal Gas Tax accountability mechanisms for all BCF projects in order to expedite projects - providing up-front funding of federal funds rather than reimbursement based on complex contribution agreements; and 5. A federal and provincial commitment to expedite decisions and the processes (e.g., environmental assessments) that relate to BCF projects. AMO is also recommending to the Minister of Finance that additional federal investment in infrastructure be provided to municipalities through the Federal Gas Tax. Federal Gas Tax investment leverages municipal own source investment and funds key projects while being fully accountable to tax payers. l-- 0:: w ....J <C 1-2 Association of Atie Municipalities of Ontario zJ.p I- a: AMO is also recommending that the Minister of Finance allocate new federal W investment in Housing. If additional federal investment is provided through a i streamlined funding program, Ontario municipalities will be well situated to quickly invest. .... .1. in housing, including housing renewal and energy retrofits, and in much-needed new -- affordable housing stock. This investment will help stabilize housing starts and the <C. ' residential construction industry, secure jobs in the industry and among Canadian " suppliers of housing materials. It will result in reduced energy consumption in social ' housing and corresponding green house gas emission reductions and increase access to affordable housing for Canadians. 6. Provide additional infrastructure investment directly through the Federal Gas Tax funding. Increasing federal infrastructure investment funding through this mechanism will allow construction-ready projects to proceed ahead of schedule, leverage municipal own-source investment and create jobs in every part of Ontario. 7. The federal government should work on an urgent basis with provinces, territories and municipalities to create a new, streamlined national housing program that supports affordable housing renewal and repairs, energy retro-fits and the creation of additional supply of affordable housing for Canadians. AMO believes that these measures meet the criteria for the design of effective stimulus policies outlined in the Department of Finance's consultation documents as follows: . Timely - stimulus when it's needed. . Maximum impact - stimulus that delivers. . Flexible in size and duration -- smart stimulus. . Consistent with Canada's long-term economic goals - stimulus that fits the plan. Action: Heads of Council can write to the Ministers at the addresses below indicating support for AMO's recommendation to include these important budget measures that will help stimulate the economy, create jobs in Ontario, improve access to affordable housing and invest in the quality municipal infrastructure that serves as a foundation of the national economy. The Honourable James M. Flaherty Minister of Finance Department of Finance Canada 140 O'Connor Street Ottawa, Ontario KiA OG5 The Honourable John Baird Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Tower C - 330 Sparks Sl. Ottawa, Ontario KiA ON5 Support for expanding infrastructure investment and additional investment in housing can also be provided on line at the Federal Department of Finance online consultation site at: http://www.fin.ac.ca/scripts/prebudaets urvev/selectMainPriorities e.asp Additional information regarding fiscal stimulus and the government's 2009 budget consultations is available at: http://www.fin.ac.ca/news08/data/08-1031e.html This information is available in the Policy Issues section of the AMO website at www.amo.on.ca. 2-2 Association of ....t:t. Municipalities of Ontario .. ,. . 27 Association of Municipalities of Ontario OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Sent via fax 613-995-0327 December 4, 2008 The Honourable John Baird Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Place de Ville, Tower C, 29th Floor 330 Sparks Street .Ottawa, ON KiA ON5 Dear Minister Baird:. I am writing to provide recommendations for the acceleration of Building Canada Fund investment and particularly the $1 billion available for investment in the current year. There is strong consensus that significant infrastructure spending is a critically important economic stimulus. If you combine the desire for countercyclical policy with the need to address the infrastructure deficit that has grown over the past decades, the case for significant and immediate infrastructure funding is even more compelling. I have enclosed options that AMO believes will best help you to accelerate the BCF investments in infn;l.structure. These include: 1. Increasing the amount of funding for the current intake ofthe BCF Communities Component, in part by rededicating the P3 enveloPe to the Communities Component; 2. Using BCF to support asset renewal projects that can be implemented quickly;. 3. A call for proposals for the BCF Major Projects category; 4. The use of Gas Tax accountability mechanisms for all BCF projects in order to expedite projects; and 5. A federal and provincial commitment to expedite decisions and the processes (e.g. environmental assessments) that relate to projects. I have also provided some background on infrastructure investments in Ontario from a recent study of Ontario municipal infrastructure done for the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review (PMFSDR) which included some of the most detailed to date economic and financial modeling anywhere,in the country on the state of municipal infrastructure. I have also included information on the accountability of the federal gas tax funding approach as a more efficient and effective and quality reporting approach. 1 200 Unive,rsity Ave., Suite 801 Toronto ON M5H 3C6 Canada I E-mail: amo@amo.on.ca I www.amo.on.ca ~ Tel: (416) 971-9856 I Fax: (416) 971-6191 I Toll-free in Ontario: 1-877-426-6527 n 2-? Context of Ontario Municipal Infrastructure: The Infrastructure Working Table of the recent Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review has revealed some startling facts about the state of municipal infrastructure in Ontario. Many of our infrastructure systems, including roads and bridges, transit, water, wastewater and stormwater, and solid waste management are nearing the end of their useful life and are in need of refurbishment or replacement. This inventory has not yet captured recreation and housing and other municipal facilities, but is a clear picture of overwhelming need. Ontario's municipalities annually spend a great deal of money, $3.9 billion, but not nearly enough to address the problem. According to this analysis, an additional $6 billion a year over the next ten years needs to be invested in municipal infrastructure in Ontario to address the accumulated municipal infrastructure deficit. Almost half of that amount needs to be invested in municipal roads and bridge systems that link communities and economies. The impact of this defiCit on local economies, the provincial economy and the national economy is evident and cannot be ignored. . Infrastructure Investment Gap Estimates for Ontario Municipalities Average Annual Estimates 2006 - 2045 ($2006M) Current Investment Gap Investment Need Investment (first 10 years) Lifecyde Infrastructure Grovllh ' Total Annual Total Investment Investment Deficit Estimate Investment Ilnvestment Need Trend (FIR FIVe Need (over 10 years) Need Estimate Year Average) Tot;ll Per Capita Per household ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions)' ($ millionS) ($) ($) Roads & Bridges 2.671.1 935.8 651.6 4.258.5 1.460.2 2,798.2 231.7 568.8 Water and Wastewater 844.3 1,277.7 661.3 2,783.3 1,520.5 1,262.8 104.6 256.7 Stonnwater 525.3 27.8 234.7 787.9 106.7 681.1 66.4 138.5 Transit 899.8 0.0 730.1 1,629.9 563.7 1,056.2 88.3 216.7 Conservation AuthorIties 4.4 3.2 0.0 7.6 NA 7.6 0.6 1.6 Solid Waste Management 316.5 NA 77.4 393.9 291.1 102.8 8.6 20.9 TOTAL 6,261.5 2,244.6 2,355.1 9,861.1 3.942.3 5,918.8 490.1 1,203.2 Nole: Solid Waste Management dala for c:urrenllnveslmenl are laken from StatisUcs Canada data ($291.1 million). * FIR Dala from 200110 2005 The report revealed that Ontario communities have a significant shortfall in upkeep for existing assets, in addition to the needs in growing communities for infrastructure to accommodate the growth they are experiencing. This means there are a large number of municipal inffastructure systems in the province that would. be eligible candidates for accelerated funding under the Building Canada Fund (BCF). To the communities that are having difficulty paying for existing infrastructure, being able to unlock infrastructure dollars to renew and preserve assets will be as critical and as beneficial economically as the funding of new projects and may in fact fit the local circumstances of 2 29 smaller communities. In many cases, there would be an opportunity to accelerate projects already within a municipal capital plan allowing investment to occur rapidly and without the delays associated with approval of major new projects. If an accelerated infrastructure program included asset renewal, it would be able to spread the benefits of infrastructure spending and economic stimulus quite wide. BCF Considerations: The key terms and conditions of the Building Canada Fund have been set out in agreements between the federal government and provinces and territories. According to the BCF Framework agreement in Ontario, the provincial and federal governments are expected to propose projects for funding under the Major Infrastructure portion of the Fund. To date, municipalities do not have a clear means of proposing projects in this category. Even if they had, projects must be worth $30 million or greater under the agreement, which by its nature means the Major Infrastructure funds will be inaccessible to many smaller municipalities. Those that can apply for the smaller, more competitive Communities Component funding, must propose projects that are new or substantially re-built infrastructure to be eligible, eliminating some of their greatest needs, delayed upkeep, which extends the Iifecycle of infrastructure - a most worthy investment when it comes to managing property taxpayer dollars. New projects will also need to be subjected to provincial and federal environmental approvals, substantially lengthening the implementation process. Despite these limitations, there are funds under the Building Canada Plan, such as the P3 Fund, or Gateways and Borders or even the PfT Base funding that could be more easily flowed, without the need to amend existing agreements and could also be directed toward asset upkeep and renewal. The current practice in infrastructure programs whereby municipalities spend the money to complete work on an approved project and then submit expenses for reimbursement may create a problem in terms of translating federal funding into shovels in the ground quickly. This problem may be compounded in light of the current availability of credit for upfront financing of projects. It is also worth noting that an accelerated infrastructure funding program, if done under the current 1/3 contribution method contained in the BCF, could create a fiscal pressure for the provinces and territories by disrupting their established fiscal plans. If this is the case, it could have implications for eXPElditing projects and flowing funds. Additional flexibility in the sequencing of federal and provincial funds may be required and we encourage the federal government to bring flexibility to this. The ability for respective Ministers to jointly agree to changes within the BCF Agreement is a provision that should be fully explored to make accelerated investments. In addition, utilizing the existing P3 allocation to enhance the Communities Component of the BCF will address the significant needs of this part of the Fund. 30 3 Federal Gas Tax Funding Outcomes: Between 2005 and 2007, over $575 million in Federal Gas Tax revenues flowed to municipalities in Ontario. By the end of 2007, over $377 million of that revenue was invested in priority infrastructure projects across the province. These investments have primarily been focused on the rehabilitation and renewal of existing infrastructure as municipalities work diligently and methodically at addressing the highest infrastructure priority needs in their communities. This funding, the extension and permanency, is an extremely flexible and successful tool for municipal infrastructure investment that has leveraged significantly more in municipal contributions to infrastructure. As an example of the sort of returns generated in Ontario by the Federal Gas Tax revenues between 2005 and 2007, AMO calculated the real expenditures in Gas Tax funds in three priority categories: transportation; water and wastewater; and waste management. The federal contribution in these areas through the Federal Gas Tax Fund was $290 million between 2005 and 2007. However, the municipal contribution in these categories and projects was a further $649 million in Ontario over the same timeframe, over 200 per cent more than the federal investment. In addition, these investments created approximately 10,000 new jobs and yielded over $118 million in federal tax revenues. Investments in other eligible categories would increase these numbers. The federal gas tax funding model is an important one. While other priorities may be put aside when municipalities are confronted by declining revenues, federal gas tax funded projects can proceed with a guaranteed predictable revenue source. But the Federal Gas Tax agreement also includes a rigorous accountability framework for Canadian's tax dollars. AMO, as the administrator of the agreement, and all municipalities annually undertake audits of both the financial management of the funds and compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. After three years of undertaking this type of accountability approach there has been no material non-compliance identified within AMO or Ontario municipalities. In addition, AMO enforces compliance through withholding funds from municipalities until all reporting is submitted. Of the 443 municipal funding agreements AMO administers, less than 0.01 % have not been paid their 2008 allocation pending submission of compliance audits. Federal staff have expressed a high degree of confidence in this reporting approach and outcomes. Expediting Decisions Expediting decisions must be part and parcel of streamlining and facilitating the acceleration of investments. Getting to 'yes' or 'no' is important to municipal capital plan and budget planning cycles and financing. More importantly, decisions need to be timed so that construction work can be arranged in time for the construction season, which in northern Ontario is different than southern Ontario. This needs to be normalized for every year of the BCF - to ensure the timing of federal and provincial decisions works for municipal implementation. Municipal governments in Ontario must currently work with multiple approval processes, particularly Environmental Assessment. Environmental considerations are important but the respective, siloed processes will not enhance acceleration of investment particularly in 2009 and 2010 and on a go forward basis given the significant needs outlined above. 4 31 Recommendation: The priority of deploying funding quickly and ensuring that projects are implemented as soon as possible means that the federal government needs to be innovative in its use of the BCF. The options presented by AMO are by no means mutually exclusive and the federal government could use all of them to accelerate infrastructure spending for a positive economic, social and environmental impact. By far the simplest to implement would be the increase in the Intake 1 funding envelope under the BCF Communities Component. This would put projects quickly into action as municipalities have already applied and government review is now taking place. Coupling this with flowing' the funding up-front and auditing after the fact and/or an asset renewal program would easily put many municipal projects across the province intQ the pipeline for the 2009 construction season that might otherwise not get done. You should remember that with an upfront funding mechanism, municipalities are also likely to leverage their spending as we have seen in the federal Gas Tax Fund program - leveraging additional investment and job creation. In light of the government coming forward with a budget in January 2009, additional federal funding can be used at that time to replenish the existing P3 component that was used to top- up the Communities Component. AMO recommends the government consider all of the abOve options to produce the desired economic effects in the Ontario economy in 2009 calendar year. I trust you will find the information informative in guiding your decision. Sincerely, ~~ Peter Hume AMO President Attachment cc. The Right Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada The Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance Canada The Hon. Dwight Duncan, Ontario Minister of Finance Louis Ranger, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities The Hon. George Smitherman, Ontario Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Saad Rafi, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Hon. Jim Watson, Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing John Burke, Deputy Minister, Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Jean Perrault, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities Brock Carleton, Executive Director, Federation of Canadian Municipalities Executive Directors of Provincial and Territorial Associations 5 3;) Option/Description Mechanism Analvsis The CC Intake 1 apptlcatlon period has just closed and lodlcallons are the number of projects and potentlally the dollar value of the projects submitted are significantly more than the funding envelope, consistent with the fonner COMR1F program. Option 1 The envelope for Intake 1 funding could be significantly Increased to fund a Increase funding for the greater part, or even all of the projects submitted, depending on their merits. current Intake of the The funding envelope for CC BCF Communities Intake 1 would be increased to The option has the advantage that applications have just been prepared by Component, in part by fund a greater number of municipatlties and submitted to the review secretariat, meaning that the rededicating the P3 projects under the intake. municipalities that submitted projects are already In the planning stage to some envelope degree and the review secretariat are familiar with the merits of each project and whether it meets the eligibility criteria set out in the BCF, It is likely that if projects were selected that municipalities could begin work on them in 2009. In light of the government coming forward with a b.udget in January 2009, additional federal funding can be used at that time to replenish the existing P3 component that was used to top-up the Communltles Component. Asset renewal Is a very quick way to have munIcipalities undertake Infrastructure work and would result in the hiring of consulting services and contractors relatively quickly and usually without long and costly study. These would also The federal government .would ,result in local job creation. open BCF to asset' renewal Using funds for asset renewal would also help to offset the huge municipal Option 2 projects and use some of the infrastructure deficit' and deferred maintenance, If unbudgeted. This would mean Asset Renewal Gateways and Borders Fund that lifecycle work would be completed on municipal assets before the need for to rehabilitate municipal road decommissioning or re-bulld, allowlng more funds to go toward new assets In the and bridge assets that connect to border infrastructure, long run. Use of the Gateways and Borders Fund to rehabilitate municipal assets serving as connectors to border infrastructure would result in overall better and more efficient operation of the borders and improve municipal assets, resulting In local jobs in border communities. Option 3 The federal and provincial Would initiate and expedite the Me process as the Infrastructure Committee has governments would issue an Major Component call immediate call for proposals not yet met for Ontario. With expedited review, this could get shovels Into the for proposals under the Major Component of ground within 2009 on a handful of projects. However, the call would advantage the BCF those projects that are currently ready to go and disadvantage those who were expecting more lead time and a more transparent process, The projects would conform to the BCF criteria for major/cc projects and allow transparent selection based ,on the conditions set. Time would be needed for municipal application, federal and provincial review and selection, engineering and environmental studies for new projects, which Unspent 08~09 BCF funds to would detract from the immediacy of the projects. municipalities would go Funds flowing up-front and using the GTF accountability mechanisms Would Option 4 through the selectlon process ensure that munlclpalltles could spend money sooner, rather than the delays Use Federal Gas Tax in the BCF Frameworkl CC accountability Agreement, but funds would experienced with submIssion of receipts for reimbursement. mechanisms for BCF be flowed up.front with the Alternatively, the Ontario Government's recent experience with its Municipal F?rojects GTF accountability used to Infrastructure Investment lnlllative (Mill) could also be a good example for the ensure proper use. accelerated BCF accountability provisions. Under this program, funding was ,flowed to chosen projects that were planned by municipalities upfront and the government retained the right to audit the municipality's use of the funding at a later date. Flowing two years of federal funding in one year could create pressure on PIT jurisdictions to match It. 6 33 CORRESPONDENCE - Januarv 13, 2009 Items for Information (Consent A~endal 1. Warden Graham Warwick, with a copy of his speaking notes presented to the Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance on December 15, 2008 in Windsor, in regards to the discussions being held concerning the 2009 Ontario Budget. (ATTACHED) 2. Honourable David Caplan, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, announcing the funding adjustment for the 2009 planned grant increase of up to $175,843 for land ambulance. (ATTACHED) 3. T.E. Campbell, Port Stanley, Ontario, with concerns regarding the 2009 County budget. (ATTACHED) 4. Hon. Steve Peters, M.P.P., Elgin-Middlesex-London, with copy of correspondence to the Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance, concerning the request by Mark McDonald, CAO. of the County of Elgin, to meet with the Minister of Finance regarding the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund possible grant reduction in 2010. (ATTACHED) .31 SPEAKING NOTES FOR WARDEN GRAHAM WARWICK REGARDING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 2009 ONTARIO BUDGET DECEMBER 15TH, 2008 WINDSOR, ONTARIO MR. MINISTER: FIRST OF ALL, ON BEHALF OF ELGIN COUNTY, WE WISH TO THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THESE CONSULTATIONS. IN OUR VIEW, IN THESE MOST CHALLENGING ECONOMIC TIMES, SENIOR LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT MUST "STIMULATE" THE ECONOMY BY SPENDING ON INFRASTRUCTURE. ROADS, BRIDGES, WATER AND SEWER AND THE LIKE NEED UPGRADING AND REPLACEMENT. WHEN OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR DECLINE, GOVERNMENT SHOULD FILL THE VOID. A PROVINCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL PROGRAM WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARD STIMULATING GROWTH AND PROSPERITY. THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO SLASH AND BURN. CITIZENS LOOK TO GOVERNMENTS TO HELP THE RECOVERY AND YOU CANNOT DO THAT BY REDUCING INVESTMENT IN YOUR PROGRAMS. YES, YOU SHOULD EXAMINE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AND REDUCE WHERE POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, JOB CREATION AND 3~~ 2 ECONOMIC GROWTH ARE VITAL, EVEN IF THAT MEANS INCURRING A PROVINCIAL DEFICIT. MORE PROGRAMS LIKE "INVESTING IN ONTARIO" SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. THAT PROGRAM WAS SIMPLE AND VERY EFFECTIVE. DOLLARS WERE ALLOCATED TO CAPITAL PROJECTS. PROJECTS WERE DEVELOPED QUICKLY AND THE BENEFIT TO THE ECONOMY WAS IMMEDIATE. THESE PROGRAMS NOT ONLY BENEFIT LOCALLY, BUT HELP TO PROMOTE JOB GROWTH AND COMMERCE ACROSS THE PROVINCE. IN CLOSING, WE CAN WORK MORE EFFECTIVELY BY YOU TRUSTING THAT YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE DOLLARS WILL BE SPENT WISELY ON HIGH PRIORITY NEEDS WITHIN COMMUNITIES. THERE NEED NOT BE MANY STRINGS ATTACHED OR MUCH BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE TO FOLLOW. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. LET'S GET ON WITH IT. AGAIN, THANK YOU MR. MINISTER. sG, Office of the Minister 10th Floor, Hepburn Block 80 Grosvenor Street Toronto ON M7A 2C4 Tel 416-327-4300 Fax 416-326-1571 VNIW.health.gov.on. ca Bureau du ministre ~ "'l....." Ontario Ministry of Health ,and Long-Term Care Ministere de la Sante et des Soins de longue duree 1 all etage, edifice Hepburn 80, rue Grosvenor Toronto ON M7A 2C4 Tel 416-327-4300 Telec 416-326-1571 www.health.gov.on.ca HL TC2965FL-2008-1310 December 5, 2008 Ms. Sylvia Hofhuis Warden The County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas ON N5R 5V1 R ""'If-O J;j \~. " r,,<:;] U, "J l\~,tH i:>;,. GEe 1 6 200B COUNTY OF ELGIN AOMIN1STRATIVE SERVjCi.~ Dear Warden Hofhuis: The McGuinty government has unveiled an ambitious health reform plan. I would like to thank you for your continuing effort and co-operation in working with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to improve Ontario's health care system. The success of our reform plan is dependent largely on ongoing collaboration with our health care partners, and key contributory factors such as our enhancement of resources to strengthen care in the community. To this end, the ministry has reviewed the land ambulance funding for our 50:50 partnership for 2009 and as a result, the following funding adjustment is planned: . 2009 planned grant increase of up to: $175,843 Your funding will be adjusted in your electronic transfer. ...2/ 1671-01 (200B/OOl 37 7530-4658 -2- Warden Hofhuis I would like to take this opportunity again to convey my sincere appreciation for the considerable contributions all members of your organization make in the provision of health services in your communities. Yours sincerely, ..~ David Caplan Minister c: Steve Peters, MPP, Elgin-Middlesex-London Norm Gamble, Chair, South West LHIN 1671-01 {2008/06} Sf? 7530-4658 December 21, 2008 FiE ~f!VED The Warden and Councilors County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 .IAN ~ 2 2009 COUffrV OF ELGIN AOMlIifISfAAmtESERYIC~ Re: 2009 Budget Ladies & Gentlemen: The coming year will be especially harsh for the many who have or are about to lose their jobs and those who must live off retirement funds that have taken a severe blow in the investment markets. The County of Elgin has historically done a poor job of keeping tax increases near inflation. The excuses have been provincial downloading, police contracts, labor increases etc... . No where in the vast array of variables that make up the annual budget have we seen an annual cost savings plan to buffer necessary spending. In today's environment a very critical eye is required to define what is necessary. In trying to evaluate the County budget on the website I find it surprising that the only budget shown is for 20051 Where's the transparency?? Residential assessment values in generai are not the determining effect on the final property taxes we pay, because the Municipality and the County have the ability to control expenses and set the tax rate higher or lower. The time has come for the County to manage in an aggressive fiduciary manner. What are the County plans to control spending and their portion of the property taxes? To stop the continual and escalating costs of the County there must be an evaluation of all costs with an eye to doing more with the same or less. This is not a novel idea, but it seems to be lost in most governments. Some areas that the County Council may seem to be unwilling to deal with, but must, are as follows: .../2 39 2. Freeze all hiring and replacements. All labor contracts and salaries to be restricted to CPI or below. Re-evaluate all hourly and salaried positions with an eye to consolidations where possible. As a result of said evaluations downsize the number of County employees immediately or through attrition. Re- evaluate the total and type of all vehicles and equipment operated by the County. Eliminate and/or contract out on a "as-needed" basis. Re-access all contracts for supplies, materials, equipment and services: i.e. office, consulting, energy, legal, engineering, auditors, sub contractors etc... When was the last time that alternatives for policing were evaluated??? Own force, St. Thomas Police etc... Has the cost of utilizing the County building ever been evaluated versus alternatives? Re-evaluate synergies at the homes for the aged. There are too many to mention. Although, at times staff may be delegated to carry out such investigations, it is Council that is responsible for the critical eye when evaluating and it's Council that is responsible for the final decision. This is even more important at the County level due to the constant change-over of non-elected (by the Public) warden and councilors at the County Council. The County Council is a stretched responsibility since all members owe a first responsibility to the voters that elected them at the Municipal level. Rather than change the warden every year it would be more sensible to change less frequently to assure consistency of leadership and oversight of County operations and staff. Sincerely, .J.$". ff-~ T E Campbell 584 George St. Port Stanley, ON N5l1H4 !fo J&l ~.~ -=, Ontario Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin - Middlesex - London '~1 ~f.;:o~~t '\'1_'C 'i, , , '-0 D~"~ i)!. "__c,',..-, January 2, 2009 Jf\N ... J 2009 GVtjf~TV Or: ELGIN ADMINISTrlA liVE SERVICES Honourable Dwight Duncan Minister of Finance Frost Building South, ill Floor 7 Queen's Park Crescent Toronto, ON M7A lY7 Dear Minister: Please find enclosed e-mail conespondence from Mr. Mark McDonald, CAO of the County of Elgin, who has contacted my office with a request to meet with you to discuss County Council's concerns regarding the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund and the implications of a possible $3.1 million grant reduction in 2010. Although Mr. McDonald is aware of mitigation measures your ministry has mentioned in past correspondence, the financial unceliainty of what exactly will occur leading up to 2010 has placed the County of Elgin in a difficult position when it comes to planning measures. With this in mind, I am fully supportive of a meeting being arranged between Elgin County officials, yourself and any appropriate senior policy advisors or other members of your staff at your earliest convenience. Minister, I would appreciate your reviewing these matters and responding directly to Mr. McDonald. As always, thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sl~ Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin-Middlesex-London Cc: Mr. Mark McDonald, CAO, County of Elgin 542 Talbot Street, St. Thomas, ON N5P lCA T ~ (519) 631-0666 Toll Free _ 1.800-265-7638 F - (519) 631-9478 TTY - (519) 631-9904 E ~ speters.mpp.co@libcral.ola.org .,,",,'w.stevcpcters.com 4/ CLOSED MEETING AGENDA January 13.2009 Staff Reports: 1) Chief Administrative Officer - Municipal Act, Section 240.2(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual- Human Resources Matter