Document 1

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

 

A.                 REGULATORY PROPOSALS: Requests for amendments to existing Provincial Regulations of an urgent nature that could be implemented at little or no cost” to the Province and, if necessary, on an “interim”, time-limited basis or as a pilot project.

 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

1.      Authority to charge-back to benefiting school boards a pro-rated share of the cost of municipal elections.

 

1. Autorisation d’imputer aux conseils scolaires bénéficiaires une part proportionnelle du coût des élections municipales.

The City Clerk is statutorily responsible for the municipal election in Ottawa, the cost of which is approximately $3 million and includes the election of thirty-seven school board trustees from four local school boards.  The conduct of the election for these offices requires a range of services, including statutory advertising for nominations, a process for receipt and verification of nominations, provision of voters’ lists, and the administration of the voting process itself as it relates to these offices.  The City Clerk is also responsible for the financial reporting portion of the election for school board members after the election is over.  Further, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, it is necessary to ensure that a voter can only vote for the offices which he/she is entitled to vote for.  This means that at election time, each voting location must maintain a supply of 5 different ballots to correspond to the anticipated requirement for voters for each of the four school boards and the fifth ballot for electors who are entitled to vote for a member of council but not for a school board trustee. Generally, 90% of the administration and expense necessary to hold a municipal election would be required regardless of the inclusion of school board trustees.  Accordingly, it is proposed that a 10% sharing of costs be charged-back to benefiting school boards: [6A, 6B].

Cost apportionment could be pro-rated on the basis of the Population Electoral Group data used by the school boards for the trustee determination and distribution process under the Education Act.  The 10% sharing of costs would be levied by by-law against the school boards.

By charging-back benefiting school boards 10% of the costs to administer such elections, the City can reduce election expenditures and increase its transparency and accountability concerning such matters. This authority would generate election administration revenue in the order of $300,000.

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

2.      Authority to collect road-related fees and costs from telecommunication, hydro and gas companies.

 

2. Autorisation de percevoir des frais et des coûts liés aux routes auprès des entreprises de télécommunications, des compagnies d’hydroélectricité et des sociétés gazières.

On November 14th, 2001, about a month before the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001, Ottawa City Council endorsed that “a communication be delivered to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing strongly objecting to the provisions of the new Municipal Act, 2001 that prohibits municipalities from receiving payments from utility companies for the use of municipal rights-of-way.”

 

Despite this motion, Ontario Regulation 244/02 of the Municipal Act, 2001, prohibits municipalities from imposing a fee or charge for services or activities, costs or the use of property located on a municipal highway on telecommunication, hydro and gas companies.  In 2004, the City issued 2,489 permits to Enbridge Gas and 341 permits to the combined Hydro Ottawa and Hydro One. Presently, the City recovers these costs through the local taxpayer, however, various road-related costs can be attributed to the applicable companies who should fund same.

 

Council endorsed this specific proposal at its meeting of November 10, 2004: [6B].

To provide for this authority, the City requires that the relevant sections in the Municipal Act, 2001 including the associated Ontario Regulation 244/02 as well as Section 41 of the Electricity Act be amended to reflect this authority, or the exemption/authority to override these provisions.  In order to implement this authority, the City would collect the road fees from the applicable companies when they obtain their road cut permit from the City at a cost of $324.75.  This can be done through the existing administrative structure.

Implementation of this proposal would lead to increased revenue to offset the existing cost of approximately $1 million annually incurred by the City for utility coordination, permit issuance and inspection costs relative to works undertaken by the telecommunication, gas and hydro utilities.  This figure does not account for pavement degradation, work around costs, lost opportunity for the limited ROW space or any of the other causal costs, estimated to be in the millions of dollars, all of which should properly be attributed to the utility rather than the local tax payers of Ottawa.

 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

3.      The authority to establish an Endowment Fund.

 

3. Autorisation d’établir un fonds de dotation

The establishment of an Endowment Fund is an integral part of Ottawa’s Long Range Financial Plan 2.  The City’s ability to invest money is limited by the Municipal Act, 2001 to very conservative and stable sources.  On August 25, 2004, Council approved a refinancing plan for Hydro Ottawa and will be receiving $200 million as part of the refinancing.  Updates to the Long Range Financial Plan included a report endorsed by Council on October 27, 2004 which examined the City’s tax-supported capital budget needs for the next ten years (2004-2014).  The report recommended that the funds received from Hydro Ottawa be invested in an Endowment Fund in order to derive the maximum benefit to the City in funding its capital program in the future.  With the non-tax revenue generated from owning Hydro Ottawa, the City would establish an Endowment Fund to be invested in the same manner as the two pension funds the City is currently responsible for: [6A, 6B].

As per the updated Long Range Financial Plan, the investment process of the proposed Endowment Fund would operate in a manner similar to the two City pension funds.  As such, the actual investments would be outsourced to investment firms who would invest based upon a statement of investment policies and procedures established by the City.  The performance of the investors would be monitored and reported upon on a regular, quarterly basis through a trustee relationship.  This amendment would require regulation from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to allow expanded investment capability for the City’s Endowment Fund only and would be implemented within the existing administrative structure.

The authority to establish an Endowment Fund would lead to increased revenue (approximately $8 million annually) whereas the City is currently earning 2.5% on $200 million, it is anticipated this could increase to between 5-10%.

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

4.      Authority to have municipal discretion respecting property tax policy issues (i.e. capping, ratios, classes, assessment duties and frequency).

 

 

4. Autorisation d’avoir une discrétion municipale en ce qui a trait aux politiques en matière d’impôt foncier (c’est-à-dire plafonnement, ratios, classes, tâches d’évaluation et fréquence).

In the past, the City has experienced large increases in assessment across all property classes from reassessments shifting tax burden to the residential property class.  In the 2003 reassessment, Ottawa was virtually alone in experiencing shifts of these magnitudes.  The Province instituted a regulation for 2004 that allowed Council to eliminate the inter-class tax shift the City was facing as a result of the 2004 reassessment.  However, the legislation making this authority permanent has not yet been put in place.  It is expected that similar tax burden shifts will occur in 2006.  The City must be allowed to set neutral starting tax ratios to make municipal property taxes more predictable for all property classes. 

 

On May 11, 2005, Council endorsed this recommendation as part of its review of the 2005 Property Tax Ratios and Other Tax Policies: [6A, 6B, 6C, 6E].

The City of Ottawa would establish property taxes and policies, including setting tax ratios for property classes, which would further be approved by City Council and will be implemented by existing staff.

There is no budgetary value associated with this proposal. However, municipal discretion over property tax policy could eliminate tax shifts between classes.  It also allows for less frequent implementation of re-assessment impacts.

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

5.      Authority to subdivide the property tax bill into services.

 

 

5. Autorisation de répartir le relevé d’imposition entre les services.

Through the Municipal Act, 2001 and Regulation 75/01, the Province mandated a standard property tax bill for all municipalities.  This regulated approach is not only an example of Ministerial micromanagement but also prevents the City from providing for the separation of services within the contents of the property tax bill.  The authority to subdivide the tax bill into services would allow the City increased transparency to identify these Provincially-mandated programs.  For example, the impact of increases to the Ottawa Police budget are not defined on the property tax bill.  The 2005 Budget Outlook report, received for information by Council on August 25, 2004, recommended that Council consider separating the Ottawa Police Services tax rate on tax statements to ensure funding amounts in this area are transparent: [6A, 6C, 6E].

The form and content of the City’s property tax bill would accurately reflect those services for which the local taxpayer is paying and those which are specifically mandated by the Province in order to clarify responsibility and identify those services over which City Council has no authority.

There is no budgetary impact related to this proposal.  However, it will allow for greater transparency and accountability on the City’s property tax bill.


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

6.      Ability to negotiate directly with the Federal Government on programs and policies regarding affordable housing.

 

6. Possibilité de négocier directement avec le gouvernement fédéral en ce qui concerne les programmes et les politiques en matière de logements à loyer modique.

Affordable housing is one of the City’s most compelling problems.  Currently, there is approximately $300 million in Federal funding for affordable housing which has been delayed due to conflicting Provincial and Municipal policies and programs.  On April 23, 2003, Council approved the City’s Growth Management Strategy – Ottawa 20/20 which set out specific affordable housing targets.  With respect to providing new affordable housing in accordance with the Official Plan, the City produced less than half of the targeted new dwellings for 2004: [1B, 4B, 5D, 6D].

Ottawa has the in-house capacity to implement affordable housing programs and policies, subject to City Council’s approval of funding.  However, this capacity has been limited by the Province’s control over such programs.   Essentially, the City requires the authority to decide what programs get delivered and the manner in which they are delivered. 

The implementation of this authority would allow the City’s affordable housing policies and programs to be fulfilled regardless of the intent of other levels of government.

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

7.      Authority to cap municipal gross contribution to provincial cost-sharing programs (10 year plan to eliminate City portion).

 

7. Autorisation de limiter les contributions brutes des municipalités aux programmes à frais partagés provinciaux (plan décennal visant à éliminer la contribution de la Ville).

The City currently administers a number of Provincially-mandated programs that are partially funded through cost-sharing arrangements such as Ontario Works, public health, child care, and land ambulance. This authority would not only allow Ottawa to identify Provincially-mandated income redistribution programs on the tax bill but to eventually remove them from the property tax bill: [6A, 6B].

Over a period of ten years, the City of Ottawa would reduce its contribution to cost-sharing programs.  Further, Provincially-mandated services would be identified on the property tax bill to disentangle responsibility in light of the fact that Council has no control over the costs incurred by these programs.

This proposal includes a projected savings of $5,000,000, presuming inflation on net costs related to: housing, childcare, public health, employment & financial assistance and long-term care.

 


B.                 STATUTORY PROPOSALS: Requests for amendments to the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 of a “tax stabilization” nature that may be capable of enactment by the Fall 2005.

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

8.      Exemption from all specific notice provisions in favour of Council’s discretion.

 

8. Dispense de toutes les dispositions particulières relatives aux préavis à la discrétion du conseil.

 

Currently, the Municipal Act, 2001 includes a number of specific notice requirements.  For example Section 34 requires a municipality to “give public notice of its intention to permanently close a highway whereas Section 36 requires a municipality to serve a notice with respect to passing a by-law designating a highway as a controlled-access highway on the owner of any land abutting the road personally or by pre-paid registered mail.  Furthermore, Ontario Regulation 244/02 mandates that, before enacting most fees and charges by-laws, the City must give notice of its intention to pass such a by-law “to every person and organization that has, within five years…given the clerk…a written request for notice of the intention to pass the by-law containing a return address”  As identified by the AMO, “municipal councils are in the best position to decide when notice is required.”  The AMCTO further supported this recommendation and indicated that many municipalities already conduct a public process for matters not specifically identified in the Municipal Act, 2001.  Thus, municipal governments do not require detailed direction regarding the timing and the method for giving notice. 

 

Council endorsed this proposal at its meeting of November 10, 2004: [6C, 6E].

Any changes to the City’s discretion to give notice would be implemented by amendments to the Notice By-law. 

This authority would improve transparency and accountability as well as provide a modest reduction in some advertising costs accrued by the City.

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

9.      Authority to establish the manner of giving notice both for residual legislative notice requirements and for all discretionary notice requirements (i.e. publication in newspaper vs. posting on website, e-mail, etc.).

 

9. Autorisation d’établir la manière de donner un préavis, tant pour les exigences liées aux préavis législatifs résiduels que pour les exigences liées aux préavis discrétionnaires (c’est-à-dire, publication dans un journal par rapport à diffusion sur un site Web, par courriel).

There are numerous provincial statutes that impose different notification requirements on the City.  For example, Section 4(6) of the Retail Business Holidays Act requires a municipality to publicize notice of public meetings “in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality at least thirty days before the meeting.”  The majority of these provisions are restrictive and onerous in terms of requiring notices to be posted for specified durations and frequencies in a newspaper.  There is a growing need to provide notice on many municipal matters in the most cost effective and time efficient manner (i.e. through the City’s website or by e-mail): [6E].

The ability to provide notice through alternative mediums beyond newspapers was previously granted through Section 251 of the Municipal Act, 2001.  Ottawa has demonstrated its capacity to implement this power by establishing a Notice By-law for statutory and discretionary notices required under the Municipal Act, 2001.  Implementation of this additional authority would entail drafting changes to the City’s existing Notice By-law to include other provincial statutes where notification requirements are established.

 

§         Cost savings in advertising on an annual basis.

§         Improved efficiency – less time required to post notices.

§         Tailoring public notification to local conditions to meet required frequency and duration.

§         Global notification reach on the Internet – posting of notices are not restricted to geographic locations (web).

§         Service improvements – Notices can be viewed online or by email at any time and for prolonged periods of time; information can also be saved on a permanent basis.

§         Amount of content to be posted can be unlimited and without monetary constraints (web or e-mail).

 

 

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

10.  Authority to operate and regulate a Light Rail Transit System, with exemptions from The Railways Act and the Shortline Railways Act, 1995.

 

10. Autorisation d’exploiter et de réglementer un système de train léger sur rail, sans être assujetti à la Ontario Railways Act et à la Loi sur les chemins de fer d’intérêt local

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On February 26, 2003,

Ottawa City Council adopted the findings of the Rapid Transit Expansion Study and approved a recommendation to incorporate the Rapid Transit Priority Plan into the City’s Long Range Financial Plan as well as North-South and East-West expansion of the O-train.  It was further recommended that the Mayor communicate to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, the Premier of Ontario and to all area MPs and MPPs that Council’s number one transportation priority is the Rapid Transit Network in accordance with the Rapid Transit Priority Plan.  Currently, the City’s Light Rail Transit System (“LRTS”) is considered a railway operation and must follow all applicable related legislation. With the new system operating downtown in mixed traffic, the City requires the necessary legislation to ensure that the LRTS is recognized as a public transit system, and not simply a “railway”: [1B, 3C, 4C, 6A].

The City would enact a by-law to establish operational and safety regulations for its LRTS similar to those in other Provinces and to those by which the O-Train is now regulated.

The benefits of a Light Rail Transit System range from environmental advantages such as improved air quality, to increased travel efficiency and reduced traffic congestion on the City’s roads.  With this authority, Ottawa will be able to operate and regulate the LRTS as a public transit system as opposed to a railway. 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

11.  Authority to appoint citizen members to the License Committee.

 

11. Autorisation d’affecter des résidents au Comité des permis.

On April 11, 2001, Ottawa City Council approved amendments to former by-laws which outlined the License Committee structure, meeting details and purpose under the new City.  Special legislation obtained by the City in December 2001, expanded the role of the License Committee in that it is able to make final and binding decisions.  On December 3, 2003, Council endorsed a staff recommendation to pursue the authority to appoint local citizens to the License Committee and directed Legal Services staff to seek special enabling legislation for this purpose.  Various rationale have been offered for this recommendation, including administrative difficulties calling of meetings and associated concerns with respect to quorum.  However, the main reason for it has been the reservation raised over Members of Council serving as both the policy making authority as well as the quasi-judicial licensing committee who administer/enforce the regulations governing the conduct of the licensee.  Therefore, this authority would enable the City to separate these two important functions in a transparent manner: [6A, 6C].

Implemented by a Council by-law, the License Committee would:

·        Consist of 5-7 members;

·        Be composed of citizens qualified to be elected as Members of Council;

·        Be appointed for a term not exceeding the term of Council; and

·        Be authorized to suspend or revoke licenses, to impose conditions as a requirement to continue to hold or renew a license.

Appointing citizen members to the License Committee will result in increased transparency and good governance. In effect, this “arms-length” approach would help ensure that licensing appeals are heard in an unbiased manner.

This proposal is also similar to the statutory authority currently in the Building Code and Planning Act for appointment of members to Committee of Adjustment and Property Standards Committees.


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

12.  Authority to grant the License Committee the right to levy fines as a licensing enforcement mechanism.

 

12. Autorisation d’accorder au tribunal le droit d’imposer des amendes comme moyen de mise en exécution de l’octroi de licences.

A decrease in the appointment of Justices of the Peace has resulted in excessive delays in hearing for licensing violations. This situation provides little or no incentive to promote and/or deter repeat violations: [6A, 6B].

In order to implement this authority, amendments would be made to the existing licensing by-law.   As well, the appointment of committee members and training would be required.

The benefits of this authority include good governance, reduced legal costs and will provide additional ability to recover costs of conduct licensing hearings.  Generated revenue is difficult to discern given that the tribunal may impose comparable fines as those imposed by the courts.

 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

13.  Authority to license businesses differently based on geographic locations.

 

13. Autorisation d’octroyer des licences en fonction de l’emplacement géographique.

Given Ottawa’s unique balance of 10% urban and 90% rural areas, there is a need to recognize that one-size-does-not-fit-all with respect to municipal licensing.  As such, the costs of administration and enforcement in a rural area are significantly different than those of the urban area.  Under the Municipal Act, 2001, there is a clear ability to differentiate between urban and rural licensees, resulting in a single fee for all vendors – no matter where they are located.  For example, current licensing fees for a chip wagon operating in former Ottawa on private property is approximately $1500 compared to a $500 annual fee in the former Rideau Township.  The enforcement and administration costs are reflective of the fees identified,(i.e. it costs about $500 a year to license and enforce the Rideau chip wagon by-law and $1500 for the Ottawa one).  The former Ottawa wagon involves more enforcement because of its urban location and volume of vending activity which can create nuisance problems such as noise, litter and parking: [1D, 2E, 5C].

No additional resources are required to implement this proposal.  Upon receiving the authority to regulate based on geographic location, a report and by-law will be prepared for approval by City Council.

The result of licensing based on geographic location will result in good governance and provide greater fairness and balance in the allocation of costs to the appropriate licensee especially as it relates to the City’s urban-rural dichotomy.

 

 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

14.  Exemption from restrictions related to establishing Municipal Corporations at councils’ discretion (including restrictions related to corporate shareholding abilities).

 

14. Dispense des restrictions relatives à l’établissement de corporations municipales à la discrétion du conseil (y compris les restrictions relatives aux capacités liées aux actions d’une société).

Current restrictions in the Municipal Act 2001 and its regulations have proven to be a deterrent to use of the authority to establish Municipal Corporations For example, Ontario Regulation 168/03 restricts the creation of Municipal Corporations that meet the function expressly described therein including such matters as: public transport; residential waste management; and economic development.  Both AMO and AMCTO have recommended the removal of this limited set of purposes for establishing Municipal Corporations arguing, among other things, that broadening this authority could result in more alternate service delivery opportunities to the benefit of local tax payers.

 

Council endorsed this proposal at its meeting of November 10, 2004: [6B, 6D].

The City has initiated several Public-Private Partnership Projects where a Municipal Corporation might have been an option for consideration.  The expertise to implement such a corporation currently resides in-house.

Increased flexibility with respect to Municipal Corporations would improve flexibility in developing Public – Private Partnership options.


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

15.  Authority to set fee structure to allow public policy to be addressed in fee structure in certain, appropriate circumstances (i.e. versus the present regulated calculations).

 

15. Autorisation d’établir un barème tarifaire de manière à ce que la politique publique soit englobée dans le barème tarifaire par opposition à des calculs réglementés.

The fee structure for a variety of services is legislated by the Province.  At present, waste, water, and sewer charges, police and fire inspection charges, licensing fees, and building permit fees are all restricted to the cost of providing these respective services.  For example, the City should be able to establish a fee structure for public policy reasons beyond those set out in the Act such as business protection: [6A, 6E].

Implementation of this authority would allow the City to set fees and charges in these areas to achieve public policy objectives and can be provided for through the existing administrative structure.

The benefit of locally setting the fee structure includes improved accountability and provides the City the flexibility to appropriately adjust fees in order to mitigate shortfalls.


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

16.  Authority to require affordable housing in new developments with a release ability to receive cash-in-lieu of meeting these requirements (i.e. inclusionary zoning).

 

16. Autorisation d’exiger des logements à loyer modique dans de nouveaux lotissements et possibilité de recevoir une compensation tenant lieu de la satisfaction de ces exigences (c’est-à-dire, zonage d’inclusion).

The City of Ottawa faces a shortage of affordable housing.  According to the Official Plan that was approved by Council on April 23, 2003, the City has targeted that 25 per cent of total new units in all development projects will be affordable housing units.  In 2004, the City met less than half the target for new dwellings.  The rationale for implementing inclusionary zoning requirements is to stimulate new development in order to better meet the City’s 20/20 affordable housing targets: [1B, 4B, 6B].

Currently, the affordable housing policy has targets that are voluntary, and thus difficult to meet.  Therefore, it is likely that more active involvement and investment by the City (i.e. incentives and subsidies) will be needed to encourage compliance.  The ability to make targets mandatory requirements will ensure compliance, generate new revenue sources (levies, cash-in-lieu) and will empower Ottawa to meet smart growth and other public policy objectives.  Implementation of this proposal would resemble the City’s policy of cash-in-lieu of parking, whereby property owners and occupiers may pay a lump sum to the City in the absence of providing parking spaces required by zoning by-laws.

·        Improved ability to direct outcomes of development towards meeting public policy objectives;

·        Generate new revenue sources (cash-in-lieu, development levies) targeted to public policy objective of affordable housing; and

·        Reduced need for City to directly invest in affordable housing market because developers will need to build costs of compliance into their development proposals.

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

17.  Ability to levy a portion of the land transfer tax for affordable housing.

 

17. Possibilité de lever une partie des droits de cession immobilière pour les logements à loyer modique.

Despite its growth rate, Ottawa faces a shortage of affordable housing and currently does not receive any funds from the Land Transfer Tax (LTT).  In contrast, cities in Florida fund their housing programs from a portion of this tax.  On April 23, 2003, Council approved the City’s Growth Management Strategy – Ottawa 20/20 which included affordable housing targets.  In 2004, the City was at less than half the Ottawa 20/20 target of new affordable housing units.  In order to meet the targets set for affordable housing, the City must examine new sources of funds like a portion of the LTT.  This application would be for resale only (i.e. first-time buyers would not be subject to this charge): [1B, 4B, 6B].

Implementation of this authority would require the ability to add a City portion on the existing Land Transfer Tax collected by the Province.  The tax will be charged upon resale, collected by the Province and then remitted to the City.  The revenue incurred would be dedicated to meet the City’s growing affordable housing needs.

Based on a 30 cents tax on every $100 of value, the estimate from 2004 sales is $9.6 million.


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

18.  Amend the Police Services Act – To either provide the City with greater authority to control budget or increased Provincial responsibility over wage settlements.

 

18. Modifier la Loi sur les services policiers – Autorisation d’exercer un contrôle sur le budget (plus grande responsabilité de la province en ce qui concerne les règlements salariaux).

Since 2000, Ottawa’s Police budget has increased by 42% compared to a City budget increase of 25%.  Currently, Council cannot approve the Police Services budget on a line-by-line basis and, should the Police Services Board not agree with the overall budget Council has established, it has a right to appeal that decision to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services or “OCCOPS”.  Forecasted increases in police budget requirements will continue to be significantly higher than those of the rest of the municipal budget.  The City requires more control over such external boards, authorities and commissions in order to mitigate future property tax increases. 

 

On January 24, 2005, during the City’s 2005 Budget deliberations, Council endorsed a recommendation requesting “that the Province provide Ottawa with a sufficient funding mechanism to connect police growth either with an ability to pay or, an ability to control the police budget, as is done with all other City services”: [6A, 6B].

Police Service costs would either become a Provincial responsibility, as the Police are there to enforce Provincial and Federal laws or, Council would be given greater statutory authority to control the Police Budget.  This could include the ability to review the b to approve the Police budget on a line-by-line basis or removing/restricting the Board’s ability to appeal to OCCOPS.

This specific change to the Police Services Act would result in reduced pressure on the property tax bill as well as improved transparency and accountability.


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

19.  Greater financial control over the annual budget of Conservation Authorities.

 

19. Avoir un meilleur contrôle financier sur le budget annuel des offices de protection de la nature.

Ottawa taxpayers are facing a possible 7% tax increase for 2006.  Similar to the Ottawa Police Services Board, City Council cannot approve the budgets of the Conservation Authorities of which it is a member on a line-by-line basis.  In order to mitigate future property tax increases, Council requires greater financial control over such external authorities as well as other local boards and commissions. Currently, the Conservation Authorities have their own tax rate whereas City Council only has budgetary approval authority on their special project requests: [6A, 6B].

Ideally, the budgets for Conservation Authorities should be made a provincially-funded function, as it was in the past.  In lieu of that suggestion, the entire budget should be within the control of Council to consider on a line-by-line basis without any appeal mechanism.

Affording City Council greater financial control over the annual budgets of the Conservation Authorities will lead to improved accountability and transparency as well as reduced pressure on the property tax bill.


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

20.  No regulatory provisions from the Province that require the City to take action unless accompanied by full, Provincial funding.

 

20. Aucune disposition réglementaire du gouvernement provincial qui oblige la Ville à prendre des mesures, sauf s’il y a financement intégral.

When the Province downloads a road/highway to the City via regulations, the transfer should come with sufficient funding.  For example, effective April 1, 1997 and January 1, 1998, Ottawa Road 174 (formerly Highway 17), between Highway 417 and the eastern City boundary, was transferred from the Province of Ontario to the former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton via two Orders-in-Council.  The funding for the transfer of this highway, and several others, included compensation to address one year of maintenance costs and five years of capital costs.  City Council insisted this funding was insufficient to maintain the Highway and endorsed a resolution on October 13, 2004 to upload the full responsibilities and obligations of Highway 174 back to the Province.  However, the City continues to assume the full responsibilities and obligations of maintaining Highway 174: [6B, 6D].

If full funding for mandated programs is provided by the Province, the City would be better able to manage these services and to undertake additional responsibilities.

Full funding for regulated responsibilities given to the City by the Province would reduce costs and potentially improve service delivery.


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

21.  Authority to establish standards for and to recover the City’s cost of the installation, reinstallation or relocation of utilities and telecommunications facilities within a highway which is being rehabilitated, repaired or altered by the City for municipal purposes.

 

21. Autorisation d’établir des normes relatives à l’installation ou à la réinstallation de services publics et d’installations de télécommunications aux abords d’une route qui fait l’objet d’une remise en état par la Ville.

The Public Service Works on Highways Act (PSWHA) requires that the City pay part of the utility costs for road rehabilitation, repair, rebuilding or altering for municipal purposes, which requires the relocation or reinstallation of a utility.  Under the PSWHA allowance is made for the apportionment of the cost of labour equally between the City and the utility, with all other costs of the work to be borne by the utility.  As the utility is using the municipal highway, at no cost, the City should not be burdened with any utility costs arising from that use.  In 2004, the City’s direct costs for Utility Relocations was $2.5 million: [6B].

Implementation of this proposal would require utility companies to be 100% responsible for the relocation costs with reasonable notice, where in the course of construction for a municipal purpose, it becomes necessary to relocate a utility plant.  This will require an exemption from the provisions of the Public Service Works on Highways Act, or an amendment to the Act to reflect the obligation on the utility company for 100% of the relocation costs for utility conflicts if the City’s request is for municipal purposes.

This new authority would result in a significant reduction in City costs, by shifting 100% of relocation costs to the utility and telecommunications providers.  Annually, the City’s direct Capital Works expenditures for Utility Relocations exceeds $2,000,000.  This does not include additional costs incurred by the City for work delays, work around costs or project redesign.

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

22.  Authority to impose a rights-of-way use and occupancy levy.

 

22. Possibilité de lever un impôt sur les droits de passage.

The City of Ottawa currently provides rights-of-way access to utilities and other companies at no cost.  However, the municipality’s inability to recover this use and occupancy cost, represents a loss to the City of over $1 million annually.  The authority to impose a rights-of-way use and occupancy levy would allow the City to recover fair value from the hydro, gas, and telecommunication companies for their use of valuable right-of-way space: [6B].

The implementation of a rights-of-way use and occupancy levy would require a new administrative process.  Collection of a rights-of-way levy would entail direct billing of the various companies using road rights-of-way.

A use and occupancy levy of $0.10 per metre per year for use of road rights-of-way would generate approximately $400,000 per year, per utility (including water & sewer as separate utilities).

 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

23.  Authority to issue permits for vending in designated spaces on municipal sidewalks.

 

23. Autoriser la délivrance de permis pour la distribution automatique dans des endroits désignés sur les trottoirs municipaux.

The proposal for this authority would be to expand the existing authority in the City of Ottawa Act, 1999 to include powers currently applicable only to the former City of Ottawa through special legislation.  This would include the power to establish a tendering process for spaces on municipal sidewalks recognizing existing vendors.

The permit system grants the exclusive use of a designated space by a street vendor for the sale of types of goods or refreshments that are different from goods or refreshments sold in adjacent fixed business premises: [5B, 6B].

Implementation of this amendment would enable an extension of the existing Designated Space Program of the former City of Ottawa.  This authority can be implemented through the existing administrative structure.

The Designated Space Program establishes a practical and effective system of regulating the use of municipal sidewalk space and enables more equitable treatment of vendors.  On an annual basis this proposal should generate revenue of approximately $60,000.

 


 

 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

24.  Amend the Development Charges Act including an exemption from the ten percent statutory deductions.

 

24. Modifier la Loi sur les redevances d’exploitation – notamment l’ajout de retenues légales de 10 p. cent.

While available to offset growth costs, development charges do not recover these costs in full.  Currently, the Development Charges Act requires a mandatory 10% capital cost reduction for a range of services including public transit, parks and recreation facilities, libraries, child care services, emergency medical services and public works yards.  All of these services are required to expand to meet the needs of a growing community.  The 10% deduction means that for these services the existing tax base is being required to support the direct costs of growth.  For example, current growth in the Riverside South community will require a new branch library as it becomes further developed.  Under the current legislation, the first 10% of the capital cost of this project would be paid by the general tax base even though the entire facility is required only to serve new residents.  Similarly, development of new parks and recreation facilities built to serve the new areas in former Kanata, Nepean and Cumberland will require a 10% contribution from the existing tax base even though the facilities are in new growth areas: [6B].

As a means to finance the costs of growth, this authority would require an exemption from Section 5(1) in the Development Charges Act.  Currently, the City is required to include a ten per cent reduction for the costs of all services included in the Development Charge except those outlined in Section 5(5). 

This proposal would provide the City with additional funds to cover the costs of growth.  Over a ten-year period, the mandatory 10% is estimated to be $76.6 million.

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

25.  Authority to introduce a vehicle plate fee.

 

25. Possibilité d’introduire des frais liés aux plaques d’immatriculation.

Roads are the backbone of Ottawa’s transportation system, and significantly affect its economic vitality.  The City owns and operates approximately 6,000 kilometres of roads including arterial, collector and local roads as well as a freeway.  Almost 90% of households own at least one motor vehicle, with urban households owning an average of 1.2 each, and rural households owning an average of 1.9 each. The City receives no share of vehicle registration fees, yet must provide all infrastructure that allows residents to use their vehicles.

 

In April 2001, City Council established the Task Force on Property Assessment and Tax Issues to review matters related to property assessment and property tax reform.  On December 12, 2001, Council endorsed a number of the Task Force recommendations including that “the Province of Ontario provide some portion of the vehicle registration fee…to be used to fund the provision of local transportation services (roads, sidewalks, public transit, etc)”: [3C, 6B].

Implementation of this authority would entail including a City charge to vehicle plate fees.  The fee would be charged at vehicle license bureaus, collected by the Province and then remitted to the City.

 

 

A $25 charge would generate approximately $9 million per year.  Revenue from this fee would be dedicated to road improvements and transit initiatives in Ottawa.

 

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

26.  Authority to levy a visiting players’ tax with respect to professional sports.

 

26. Autorisation de lever des impôts pour les équipes visiteuses dans les sports professionnels.

The City of Ottawa is steadily becoming a strong sporting community as it is home to four professional sports teams and various additional major sports organizations.  Common in more than a dozen U.S. jurisdictions and the Province of Alberta, the ‘Visiting Players’ tax could be levied on the portion of player incomes of visiting teams that is deemed to have been earned while playing “away” games in Ottawa.  The concept of a ‘Visiting Player’s’ tax was strongly endorsed by the former Regional Chair of Ottawa-Carleton to provide financial assistance to Canadian NHL teams and avoid the use of municipal tax dollars to support local, professional sports teams such as the Ottawa Senators.  More recently, in light of Alberta’s decision to implement a similar tax in March 2002, Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli urged the Province of Ontario to consider levying a tax on visiting NHL players: [6B].

Participating U.S. jurisdictions levy a tax that ranges between 1% and 10% of income and Alberta implemented a game-day tax of 12.5%.  A 2000 study by KPMG estimated that a Province of Ontario visiting player tax, if charged at 15% on MLB, NHL and NBA sport teams, would net the Province slightly more than $14 million.  As an income tax, the ‘visiting player’s tax’ would be collected by the Province and then remitted to the City.

The benefit of a visiting players tax is normally associated with the provision of capital facilities (i.e. stadiums), branding and marketing.  Based on the figures provided by the KPMG study, a ‘Visiting Player’ tax in Ottawa might generate, as a rough estimate, upwards of $3 million annually.

 


 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

27.  Authority to levy a hotel tax.

 

27. Possibilité d’imposer une taxe hôtelière.

The Nation Capital Region annually welcomes over 7 million visitors per year and the City’s tourism and convention industry generates more than $2 billion in economic activity.  Current pressures on Ottawa’s budget require new sources of funding.  In April of 2001, City Council established the Task Force on Property Assessment and Tax Issues to review issues related to property assessment and property tax reform.  On December 12, 2001, Council endorsed a number of the Task Force recommendations including, “that the Province of Ontario amend the Municipal Act, 2001 to permit municipalities to impose a visitor room tax on hotels, motels and similar establishments”.

 

On October 13, 2004, Council directed the City Solicitor to seek special legislation to implement a hotel tax “in accordance with the legislative framework in Document 2”, a draft bill to amend the City of Ottawa Act.  Section 1(4) of that bill provided that the monies collected would be used for the following purposes: destination marketing; visitor support services; or tourism development initiatives (includes festivals, fairs, and special events): [2D, 5B, 6B].

A hotel tax would initially be charged by the hotel, collected through the existing provincial sales tax process, in order to minimize the administration costs, and then remitted to the City.

The authority to levy a hotel tax aligns the municipal costs with revenue that is generated from within the tourism sector. A 3% tax would generate approximately $6.9 million.

 

AMENDMENT

RATIONALE AND 20/20 PRINCIPLES

CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

28.  Authority to assign a recycling levy (i.e.bottle returns, regulating use of paper/plastic bags, etc.).

 

28. Possibilité d’imposer une taxe sur le recyclage (retour de bouteilles, réglementation de l’utilisation des sacs en papier et en plastique).

In 2004, City Council eliminated the collection of certain plastics due to the high cost of collecting and processing same.  A tax on the generators of these products or a policy to require the implementation of a “take-back” program would reduce the negative environmental impacts of such products: [3D, 6B].

Any recycling levy would be collected through the existing provincial sales tax process in order to minimize the administration costs, and then be remitted to the City.

There is no estimate of the revenue to be generated from this proposal.  However, a recycling levy would likely reduce the cost to the City of managing recyclable waste as well as the environmental impact of diverting this waste from Ottawa’s landfills.