MINUTES
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON
CHAMPLAIN ROOM
5 MARCH 1998
1:30 P.M.

Members: D. Beamish, W. Byrne, L. Davis, D. Holmes, H. Kreling, A. Loney, M. McGoldrick-Larsen

POSTPONEMENTS AND DEFERRALS

1. ONTARIO WORKS REGULATIONS: UPDATE ON CHANGES ANNOUNCED BY THE MINISTER ON FEBRUARY 2, 1998

Ms. Lalonde pointed out that previously, when both joint custody parents were on welfare, the non-custodial parent would receive support to provide accommodation for

visiting children. With the new changes, a single parent receiving a maximum of $520/month will find it difficult to provide appropriate accommodation for overnight visits with children. She emphasized that the best way to ensure that a parent continues to pay child support is to ensure that the parent develops an ongoing relationship with his/her child(ren). If the parent cannot afford to do so, then the relationship is at risk for breaking down and it becomes difficult to persuade the parent to pay child support.

In addressing the issue of boarders and recipients living in their parental home, Ms. Lalonde stated that the implementation date of April 1, 1998 allows very little time for those affected to make alternate living arrangements. She noted that many families/parents will have difficulty making up the difference in income.

Councillor Byrne asked how accessible the Trillium Drug Plan was for those people who are not eligible for social assistance but require assistance for drug costs. In response, Ms. Lalonde stated the Trillium Drug Plan was not very accessible because of the $400/year deductible and 6-8 week application processing period. Commissioner Stewart opined that this was another disincentive for people to move into lower wage employment (providing marginal earnings above welfare allowance). The previous regulations, which allowed people to continue to receive health benefits, minimized the risk for people until they could increase their income. He stated that this policy change is not consistent with the objective of the legislation which is to support people to self-reliance through employment.

Commissioner Stewart referred to British Columbia as an example of progressive policy. That province has introduced a more generous child benefit program, that provides continued child benefits for employed parents. It also offers a comprehensive bridging mechanism that allows people to maintain some benefits, such as drug care, for the first year or so of employment.

Councillor Byrne asked for clarification of benefits for parents with joint custody. Mr. Sabey, Director of Income Maintenance Division, responded that in a situation where both parents are receiving social assistance, the Department conducts an assessment of financial needs and legal obligations for shared parenting. The current policy allows the Department to provide funds for additional shelter to the non-custodial parent, and additional benefits to reflect the amount of shared parenting. Councillor Byrne opined that the new regulations will complicate the administration of benefits and discourage joint custody arrangements

Commissioner Stewart stated the Department had not yet seen detailed regulation changes on all of these items, including parents of joint custody. He also warned that it was possible that the Department may not be able to meet provincial deadlines for implementation of regulations.

Chair Munter noted that the Region has been paying deductibles for the Trillium Drug Plan since 1996. Commissioner Stewart confirmed that the Department had received a direction from Council that would allow the Department to accept claims from low-income people. He stated that the Ministry’s rationale for the change in the regulation was that very few people actually use the drug plan. He pointed out that there is a "psychological support" associated with knowing that the benefit is there that helps people take the leap from social assistance to employment.

Moved by D. Holmes

CARRIED, as amended

Commissioner Stewart stated that he has critically analyzed the financial statements provided by Ottawa Neighbourhood Services (ONS) to determine the potential for ONS to recover and pay back any money that might be forthcoming from the Region. Commissioner Stewart opined, and the financial department concurred, that the financial statements are based on conservative assumptions of revenue forecasts for the years 1998-2000, based on experiences in 1997.

In his analysis, Commissioner Stewart also considered the value to regional taxpayers and the community-at-large. He stated that a considerable number of Social Service Department (SSD) clients and low-income people use the network of thrift shops to purchase low-cost fundamental goods (furniture and clothing). He acknowledged that the entire network was very important to clients.

Commissioner Stewart also pointed out that ONS has offered employment, in a very understanding and compassionate environment, to people who might not otherwise be employed and therefore, might be receiving social assistance.

In summary, Commissioner Stewart opined that a repayable grant was warranted in this situation.

For clarification, Commissioner Stewart explained that under the Municipal Act, the RMOC cannot take an equity position in a commercial venture. In the situation of a not-for-profit organization, the RMOC is able to negotiate a re-payable grant. The RMOC can proceed to secure re-payment of this grant by taking a mortgage against the property on Wellington St. which has equity above any outstanding mortgages to date.

Councillor Holmes asked how reductions in income for clients have contributed to reduced purchases in thrift stores. In response, Commissioner Stewart stated that 60% of ONS’s regular customers are on fixed incomes, such as social assistance, and that ONS has traced some revenue loss to the time period after the reduction in benefits occurred.

In response to Councillor Byrne’s question of where the funds would come from, Commissioner Stewart explained that the distinction between loan and grant was very important to how SSD traced this expenditure. The Municipal Act is clear that this has to be defined as an operational budget expenditure. He stated that because this request was not known when the budget estimates were prepared, no provision was made. If Committee and Council agree to this loan prior to final budget approvals, it will be considered a pre-commitment to the 1998 budget. It could be seen as a $75,000 increase to the SSD grant envelope, or SSD could be directed to find $75,000 within that envelope, thereby reducing another grant(s), or some combination of these two options.

Commissioner Stewart clarified for Councillor Byrne that there is a budget allocation for social service grants, however the grant envelope has not been confirmed for 1998. This grant request was not considered during that process, because it was not known. He stated that this request would probably not have met the priorities established by the grants allocation committee.

Councillor Holmes pointed out, as the representative on the grants allocation committee, that the grants have already been allocated in a fair process, subject to approval of the overall grant envelope.

Commissioner Stewart confirmed for Councillor Holmes that because of the nature of the request, (i.e., to enter into a repayment agreement) SSD needs a direction from Committee and Council to make payment in advance of the 1998 formal budget approval.

Deputy Regional Solicitor, Mr. Johnston reiterated that the decision on pre-commitment must come from Council, although the budget envelope does not have to be specified.

Councillor Davis opined that since the money will be replenished, it should be taken from "Provision for Unforeseen" versus depleting the grant envelope.

Mr. Fraser began by stating it was an unusual circumstance for ONS to come before this Committee to ask for money. He stated the ONS is looking for temporary assistance to alleviate a crisis of a temporary nature.

Mr. Fraser highlighted the fact that ONS is a local organization with volunteer directors who are local residents, and has regionally based operations. The ONS is not affiliated with any national organization. Mr. Fraser described ONS’s role in the community as providing low-cost goods to people who can’t afford to shop elsewhere, and to provide employment and job skills training for people who cannot be, or are not ready to be, employed in the private sector. He stated ONS’s objective is to be a place where people can start their employment careers, and learn transferable skills.

In addition, Mr. Fraser pointed out that ONS recycles an enormous volume of materials that might otherwise end up in landfill sites. ONS also provides a "free service" in the form of donations to people in emergency situations, for example, victims of fire, school boards, and shelters.

Mr. Fraser stated that 60% of ONS customers are receiving social assistance. He also noted that remaining 40% of customers are very important part of ONS’s revenues. There has been an obvious change in the pattern of sales at ONS. Mr. Fraser explained that there are normally seasonal fluctuations, but in 1997, sales remained flat throughout year. He stated that if ONS was performing poorly relative to its competitors, there would have been the same fluctuations but at lower sales volumes.

Mr. Fraser stated that the $75,000 grant would enable ONS to deal with its liquidity problem. The board of directors feels confident that they can bring revenues up to a level where they can continue to operate and repay a grant.

Chair Munter asked what effect welfare cuts have had on customer spending patterns and how many jobs would be affected by closure of ONS. In response, Mr. Fraser explained that there had been an observed decline in "per cash" revenues (or average purchases). Currently, ONS employs 50 full time staff, of which 10 are currently on lay-off but can expect to be recalled if ONS remains operational. Mr. Fraser opined that many ONS employees would find it difficult to find other employment.

Councillor Beamish inquired about the bank’s response to ONS’s request for additional funding. Mr. Fraser explained that the bank had already re-negotiated a revolving line of credit into a long term loan and had also extended some emergency credit over the past month. As a commercial financial institution, the bank has lending guidelines based on income qualifications, which ONS does not meet. Mr. Fraser also noted that the extra cost of servicing that debt had to be considered.

Councillor Beamish suggested a grant to cover the costs of financing over a 2 year period. In response, Mr. Fraser stated he doubted the bank’s lending guidelines would permit further debt financing for ONS.

Councillor Davis inquired about ONS’s role in the business community along Wellington Street. Mr. Fraser stated that local businesses have been very supportive, for example offering free services such as copying newsletters, and that they have worked collaboratively on promotions. He believes this generosity, in part, reflects how important local businesses view ONS’s viability to their own business. Councillor Davis opined that having an empty building on that corner would be detrimental to the community. Mr. Fraser confirmed that efforts had been made to "clean-up" the area, such as renovating the back of the building and installing new lighting and fencing.

Councillor Byrne clarified that the $75,000 would be a second mortgage after the $165,000 mortgage on a current evaluation of building. She also commended ONS for the aggressive approach it has taken to trim its budget, as reflected in the financial statements.

Ms. Lalonde clarified that the government implemented sharp cuts in social assistance benefits in 1995, not 1997 as stated in ONS’s proposal. She pointed out that contrary to previous discussion, Figure 1 (Neighbourhood News, page 2) depicts an increase in sales after 1995, and she argued that the welfare cuts would send more people into thrift stores.

Ms. Lalonde also raised concern that if the $75,000 were taken out of the SSD grant envelope, there would be less money available for other organizations. She questioned whether this was fair to the other organizations who had also missed the grant application deadline.

Councillor Davis pointed out that there are likely confounding variables influencing the revenues of ONS, including the loss of OC Transpo passes for social assistance recipients.

Councillor Beamish put forward a motion that the words "and that these be provided to Regional Councillors" be added to recommendation #2.

Councillor Davis put forward a motion to add a recommendation #3 that this loan be secured by an attachment to the equity in the building at 987 Wellington Street.

Councillor Loney put forward a motion to add a recommendation #4 that $75,000 be added to the budget estimates for Social Services (Community Funding Envelope) in 1998.

Mr. Johnston clarified for Councillor Kreling that the wording of the proposed recommendation #3 translates into a second mortgage and further, that he is satisfied that there is sufficient equity in the building for that protection. He stated in the limited time available, preliminary discussions and checks had been done including a search of Title. Mr. Johnston stated that the RMOC is not approaching this as an investment, as it is in fact a loan to be secured by a mortgage, and he recommends this course of action under these circumstances.

Councillor Kreling expressed concern with the proposed recommendation #4. He stated his preference was to direct staff to include this in the budget estimates. He opined that this motion was contradictory to the general direction given to departments to find savings and reduce their budgets.

Mr. Kirkpatrick, from the finance department, commented that it is unusual to approve an expenditure from a "Provision for Unforeseen" prior to the adoption of a budget. He stated that if the Committee and Council approves the recommendation they are pre-committing the funding of that expenditure in whatever budget deliberations are pursued through April and approved in May. He continued that if SSD is directed to add the $75,000 to the submitted budget estimates, it just becomes another budgetary issue that the Committee must deal with during budget deliberations. In the draft estimates, as submitted, there is $200,000 in "Provision for Unforeseen".

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen stated that in fairness to the grant allocation process, she would prefer to increase the grant envelope as proposed in recommendation #4. She also took the opportunity to commend ONS for the much needed service they provide in the community.

Councillor Davis put forward a motion that the $75,000 be a pre-commitment from the 1998 "Provision for Unforeseen".

Councillor Byrne stated she was in favour of assisting an organization that has been self-sufficient for over 65 years and provides a needed community service and opportunities for employment.

Chair Munter opined that is a good investment in the "community". He stated there is an employment problem within the Region, particularly for people on social assistance trying to find low-skilled jobs. He stated he does not support taking the money from "Provision for Unforeseen" and cautioned that Committee would be pre-committing 40% of this very small budget.

Councillor Beamish stated his support for taking the money from the "Provision for Unforeseen" because it means the money will be repaid into the general reserve fund.

Moved by L. Davis

REGULAR ITEMS

Chair Munter informed the Committee that Councillor Loney had requested his name be withdrawn.

Moved by M. McGoldrick-Larsen

CARRIED

4. Appointments: Ottawa-Carleton Housing Board

- Regional Clerk report dated 24 February 1998

Moved by W. Byrne

Chair Munter thanked staff for providing such a comprehensive report in a short turn-around time.

Ms. McGee introduced the report stating at the last Committee meeting staff were directed to identify some key issues and next steps relating to the assumption of responsibility for land ambulances services. The report also identifies all the key players and their roles in providing emergency health services in this Region.

Ms. McGee identified the first key issue as resolving differences of opinion with the Ministry of Health (MOH) with regard to decisions relating to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Ambulance Service. Other issues include dealing with labour relations and collective agreements, negotiating agreements and appropriate compensation plans with adjoining upper-tier municipalities for across boundary services, taxing options for recovering costs of land ambulance services, addressing the province’s current intention to continue to control the dispatch system and the impact of that decision on the design of a new land ambulance service, delivery of emergency versus non-emergency transfers, and current plans for hospital amalgamation. Additional issues are related to fleet management, equipment and vehicle purchases and other provincial practices in that regard.

The report recommends some key decisions to be made immediately including selecting an interim transition manager and establishing an inter-departmental transition team. The final recommendation is provide the land ambulance service in accordance with the Ministry’s principles that the service will be accessible, integrated, accountable and responsive.

In response to a request for clarification by Councillor Holmes, Dr. Cushman stated he understood that the Region wanted to assume control of land ambulance services as quickly as feasible, and would do what it could to be prepared by the year 2000. He stated assumption of the service is a complex issue and they are moving toward it, however he pointed out that the Region has until the year 2000.

Councillor Holmes iterated that she does not want to spend two years looking at the issue, while the province contracts it out, and then assume control in the year 2000. She emphasized that the Region wants to assume responsibility as soon as possible. Dr. Cushman pointed out that the Region must decide if it wants to administer the ambulance service or actually deliver the service.

Councillor Loney put forward a motion for a recommendation #4 to clarify that the Region wants to assume control by 01 July, 1998. Speaking to his amendment, Councillor Loney stated that since the last meeting he had been involved in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Osgoode Ambulance Service. From that experience, he stated it was quite clear that the Ministry was proceeding toward an RFP for the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Ambulance Service. He clarified that he is not advocating for the Region to take over and directly run the ambulance service, however he reiterated that the Region needs to get control of the system as quickly as possible. Setting a target date of 01 July 1998 may be sufficient to stop the RFP for the Regional service from proceeding any further.

Ms. McGee explained that assuming responsibility for land ambulance services prior to the year 2000 was in the legislation, pending the Minister’s approval. Since there has been no precedent, there is uncertainty as to what terms, conditions, or restrictions may be set.

Dr. Maloney explained that the Program had been party to some of the negotiations between the provincial government and the municipalities relating to the downloading of ambulance services. He stated that there had been a lot of talk about the costs associated with the downloading, in terms of vehicles and equipment, but little talk about patient care. Dr. Maloney stated that some municipalities were resistant to the idea of the province setting standards, and he hoped that there was not resistance to the concept of having standards in general.

The Base Hospital Program is the medical interface with the ambulance services. It offers training, quality assurance, continuing education and guidance to ambulance attendants and paramedics. The Base Hospital is an autonomous, independent advisor to the MOH on emergency medical service, and is involved in the purchase, maintenance and repair of patient care equipment.

Dr. Maloney expressed concern about the costs associated with increasing the number of base hospital programs from the current 21 to 50 (as there are 50 upper-tier municipalities). Currently base hospitals cross municipal boundaries. He also stated that there was 30 years in progress reflected in the present ambulance services and that the standard of patient care should not be compromised. The implication for the Region is that patient care standards and performance standards must be integrated into future service contracts. He reiterated that the ambulance service was a very complex issue, particularly in light of the patient care volumes handled currently by private and MOH operators.

In closing, Dr. Maloney offered the Base Hospital Program as a resource to Council.

Councillor Loney inquired about the status of education programs available to paramedics. Dr. Maloney explained that there were 16 hours of mandatory training paid for by the MOH. He stated this was not adequate since the focus was not on patient care. The patient care education is largely a responsibility of the base hospital. There are ongoing disagreement with the MOH about how much training should be offered. He referred to the Ontario Pre-hospital Advanced Life-support (OPAL) Study currently underway. Upon completion, municipalities will decide whether or not to continue with paramedics, and assume the associated costs from the province.

Dr. Maloney acknowledged that there is a backlog in paramedic training, however it was not a real issue locally as Ottawa is a satellite site for training. The bigger issues, in his opinion, are who pays for training and who has access to training.

Moved by A. Loney

6. RESPONSE TO OUTSTANDING MOTION NO. CSC 23(97): 1997 RECREATIONAL WATER RECOMMENDATIONS

7. RESPONSE TO OUTSTANDING INQUIRY NO. CSC-03(98): REGULATIONS REGARDING FIREPLACES/WOODSTOVES

1. Correspondence from the Regional Coordinating Committee to End Violence Against Women

Moved by D. Holmes

Councillor Loney put forward a motion that staff immediately proceed to prepare a plan for capital requirements for child care for the next five year period and that the amount of funding required to begin the funding plan to give effect to this be identified in time for budget consideration for 1998. He stated he was concerned that there was no plan in effect to show how the Capital Funding Policy would be financed. He admitted such a plan is preliminary and subject to amendment, however is it a starting point. He stated that if the Region successfully negotiates additional child care spaces from the province, funds will be required to build additional facilities and he does not want to see the operating reserve depleted.

Councillor Holmes added that capital reserve funds are not only required for new building construction, but also repairs to existing facilities. She stated she wanted to ensure that Regional Development Charges (RDCs) go toward building up this fund and ensuring that there is a sustainable amount to address on-going needs. Councillor Holmes proposed adding to the motion a request for the Region to start looking a RDCs for new capital projects.

Legal counsel confirmed that there was an option within the RDC By-law to levy development charges for child care, however these are limited to new facilities, and the on-going challenge is repair of existing facilities. It was also confirmed that there had been no recent amendments to the RDC By-law and that a review of the By-law would be taking place to evaluate conformity to the new Development Charges Act.

Commissioner Stewart confirmed that the Department is currently working on a 5 year plan of anticipated "maintenance" capital needs and probable new capital needs. There has been no specific provision made for an allocation to the Child Care Capital Reserve Fund in the 1998 Budget Estimates.

Moved by A. Loney

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

NEXT MEETING

The meeting of 19 March 1998 has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items. The next regular meeting will be 02 April 1998.