|
9. OPERATING STATUS REPORT - MARCH 31, 2007 RAPPORT D’ÉTAPE DES
DÉPENSES DE FONCTIONNEMENT - 31 MARS 2007 |
Committee Recommendations as amended
That
Council approve:
1. That $7.1
million of the $59.203 million of Provincial funds be transferred to the
Housing Reserve Fund and that staff be directed to administer the funds as soon
as possible; and
2. That $10 Million of the $59.203 Million of
Provincial funds be transferred to rural road repair and rehabilitation.
Recommandations modifiées du comité
Que le Conseil approuve :
1. Que
7,1 millions de dollars des 59,203 millions de dollars provenant des
fonds provinciaux soient transférés au Fonds de réserve du logement et que l’on
demande au personnel d’administrer le fonds dès que possible; et
2. Que
10 millions de dollars des 59,203 millions de dollars provenant des
fonds provinciaux soient affectés à la réparation et la remise en état des
routes rurales.
Documentation
1. Director’s report (Financial Services) dated
30 April 2007 (ACS2007-CMR-FIN-0006).
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 15 May 2007.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Submitted by/Soumis par : Marian Simulik, Director,
Financial Services and
City Treasurer/Directrice des services financiers
et trésorière municipale
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Tom Fedec, A/Manager, Financial
Planning/
A/Gest, Planification financière
Financial Services/Services financiers
(613) 580-2424 x 21316, Tom.Fedec@ottawa.ca
Ref N°:ACS2007-CMR-FIN-0006
|
SUBJECT: |
OPERATING STATUS REPORT – MARCH 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
RAPPORT
D’ÉTAPE DES DÉPENSES DE FONCTIONNEMENT – 31
MARS 2007 |
That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve the transfer of the $59.203 million in Provincial funds as announced in its 2007-2008 budget to the City’s Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund.
Que le Comité des services organisationnels et
du développement économique recommande au Conseil d’approuver le transfert des
59 203 millions de dollars des fonds provinciaux annoncé dans le budget
2007-2008 à la Réserve de stabilisation des taxes.
This report represents the first of three “Quarterly Operating Status” reports that will be prepared during 2007 showing actual spending and revenues against amounts budgeted. A detailed forecast for 2007 is not provided at this point in the year, but will be included in the June 30th and September 30th reports.
As with the 2006 reports, the year-to-date actual expenditures and revenues are compared against the budget for the corresponding time frame. Departmental and branch budgets have been “calendarized’ to account for the seasonal nature of various City services and allow for the matching of actual spending or revenues against the budget for the same time period, instead of against the whole year’s budget. This format allows City management to detect potential spending or revenue issues at an earlier point in the year and implement corrective actions were required.
As directed by Council, a compensation schedule showing the actual salary / benefits and overtime costs incurred by department / branch to March 31st versus the full year budget has also been included in this Status report as Appendix C.
This report will also summarize the financial impact on the City of the recent Provincial budget and provide recommendations to Committee and Council.
In addition, this report will provide an update on the final assessment growth calculations and the required budget adjustments per the recommendations in the “2007 Tax Ratios and Other Tax Policies” report as adopted by Council on April 25.
On March 22, 2007 the Ontario Minister of
Finance presented the government’s fourth budget.
For 2007, the Province has announced that the City will receive approximately $60 million in one-time funding. Details of the funding allocated to the City were provided by Jim Watson, MPP for Ottawa West-Nepean and Minister for Health Promotion.
The above amounts, which total $59.203 million,
have been received by the City.
Although the funding announcements by the Province would imply that these funds are to be spent on the identified areas, discussions with the provincial staff have confirmed that these funds are unconditional grants and may be used for other purposes as deemed appropriate by Council. Given the current ongoing Strategic Planning Sessions with Council and the upcoming report from the Mayor’s Task Force on Transportation, it is recommended that the $59.203 million be transferred to the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund pending the outcome of these discussions.
Although not contained in the Provincial budget on March 22, an announcement was made by MPP Jim Watson on March 23 advising that the Old Firehall Community Centre in Ottawa South is to receive $200,000 to assist in the expansion plans to better serve the recreational needs of the community.
A summary of the budget announcements that will
impact on the City of Ottawa is attached as Appendix A.
On March 19, 2007, the Minister of Finance introduced the second Conservative budget under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
The major area announced in the budget with direct implications to the City’s finances was the extension of the Federal Gas Tax Fund transfer. The former Liberal government had indicated that the value of the gas tax rebate would grow to $2 billion by 2009-10 - representing approximately 5 cents / litre. The 2007 budget extends the $2 billion program to 2013-14. By 2009, the City’s share of these funds will be approximately $50 million. These funds have been reflected in the Long Range Financial Plan III document as a source of financing for the City’s capital program.
On April 25th Council approved the “2007 Tax Ratios and Other Tax Policies” report. Included in the report was the recommendation:
“That the Payment In Lieu of
Taxation (PIL’s) budget for 2007 be reduced, by the additional tax revenue
generated from any assessment growth above the 2% already included in the 2007
budget, to reflect losses from the decreased claw-back and that the final
amount be reported to Council in the quarterly operating status report”.
The actual growth for 2007 after factoring in Requests for
Reconsideration and Assessment Review Board decisions has now been
re-calculated to be 2.2%. The increased
growth of 0.2% will generate an additional $1.92 million in property
taxes. As per Council direction, the
2007 PIL revenue budget has been reduced and offset by increased property taxes
generated from the additional 0.2% assessment growth.
4) 1st Quarter
Operating Results
Departments have allocated their 2007 budgets on a monthly basis based primarily on past experience. A large majority of City spending, such as salary and compensation costs, occurs evenly on roughly a 1/12th basis through the year. Other programs such as winter maintenance and recreational programs (outdoor pools / beaches) have definite seasonal spending patterns.
There are other program expenditures or revenues which are not seasonal in nature or do not occur evenly through the year. These are therefore more difficult to allocate to a specific month or months. These types of program costs or revenues may occur at specific time periods during the year, for example, a maintenance contract may be expected to be paid by the end March – therefore the budget is reflected in March. However, delays in the receipt of the invoice or payment delays may result in the actual posting of the expenditure in April resulting in a misalignment of the actuals with budget.
Appendix B to this report shows the first quarter actual expenditures
and revenues compared to the same period budget. For reference purposes, the annual budget for the branch or program
area is also provided. At this early
point in the year and the fact that the 2007 budget was only recently approved
on February 26, it would be expected that the actual results against budget for
the first quarter would be below 100%.
The June 30th Status Report will provide a better indication
as to whether spending and revenues are tracking to budget.
As can be seen from Appendix B, the majority of departmental and
non-departmental programs are tracking to budget. Departments have been asked to review their first quarter results
to ensure that their respective spending and revenue results are not indicative
of any underlying issues that need to be highlighted or addressed at this
time. Additional information on
specific program areas is provided below where a significant variance from
budget has occurred.
Planning, Transit & the Environment - Building Services
Building Permit revenues received for the first quarter are almost twice the amount that has been budgeted. A higher number of applications were submitted in March to take advantage of the transitioning provisions of the new Building Code requirements. The Code as been updated to include new seismic requirements which as of March 31, 2007, must be included in the design of large/complex buildings that may escalate construction costs.
Public Works & Services – Traffic & Parking Operations
Actual expenditures incurred to March 31st represent 78% of budget. Delays in Hydro billings for the first quarter and staffing positions are the primary reasons for the first quarter results.
Public Works & Services – Waste Water & Drainage Services
Actual expenditures and revenues
for the first quarter are at 72% and 14% respectively of budget. Expenditures are low due to delays in
implementing programs pending budget approval along with delays in processing
vehicles costs through the fleet management system. Revenues are low due to the receipt of Provincial and Municipal
Drainage revenues in April as opposed to March.
Public Works & Services – Drinking Water Services
Actual expenditures incurred to
March 31st represent 87% of budget.
This is attributable to delays in staffing newly approved positions, hydro
billings, reduced chemical usage, and delays in processing vehicles costs
through the fleet management system.
Public Works & Services - Solid Waste Services
Actual expenditures and revenues
for the first quarter are at 82% and 38% respectively of budget. Expenditures are low due to delays in staffing
the newly approved positions along with delays in processing vehicles costs
through the fleet management system.
Revenues are low as Waste Diversion Ontario funding and Springhill
royalties accrued in 2006 have not yet been received.
Public Works & Services – Surface Operations (Winter Maintenance)
The actual expenditures incurred in the Surface Operations Branch represent 91% of budget. The number / type of winter storm events in the first quarter of 2007 and the expenditures required to maintain City roads and sidewalks to Council approved standards, was below the 3 month budget provision. Assuming a normal November and December 2007 winter season, the 2007 budget provision may be under spent.
Corporate Efficiency Savings
The 2007
adopted budget reflects an efficiency savings target of $11.3 million. Staff will be submitting a report in May to
the Corporate Services & Economic Development Committee and to Council that
identifies areas where efficiency savings may be realized through business
process improvements. Upon Council's approval, these savings are anticipated to
be realized over the next five years.
Any
portion of the efficiency target that is not achievable in 2007 will be
addressed in the year-end Disposition report dealing with the 2007 results and
will be carried forward to form part of the 2008 efficiency target.
Sale of Surplus Lands
During the first quarter of 2007, a number of land parcels that are
surplus to the needs of the City have been sold generating $3 million in
additional revenues. As the value of
these land sales in any given year are difficult to predict, no budget is
established. Per Council direction, the
revenues from these sales are contributed to the City’s capital reserve funds.
Included in the 2007 Budget are several
budget reduction options that Council approved to achieve its property
tax target.
Some of these options were classified under the heading of “reduction targets with risk of achievement”. These options will be monitored over the ensuing months and an update provided in the subsequent 2007 quarterly reports.
• Public Works & Services – Surface
Operations Efficiency target
The department is committed to
ensuring that the $1.0 million efficiency savings target is achieved in
2007. Areas where efficiencies could be
implemented have been identified and work is commencing to determine the level
of savings that can be achieved.
• Provincial cost sharing – revenue shortfall
The
City’s Long Range Financial Plan identified a $13 million shortfall in provincial
revenues based on the funding formulas for programs that are cost shared
between the City and the Province.
Council approved the option to incorporate the $13 million into the 2007
budget and directed staff to undertake discussion with the province to resolve
the funding issues. Staff has formally
notified the Provincial Government of this gap and has requested further
discussions.
Should a favourable conclusion not be achieved,
a combined deficit of $13 million in the affected program areas may result.
|
|
|
Revenues |
||
|
Branch |
Additional Annual Revenues |
1st Qrt Budget |
1st Qrt Actual |
Received |
|
|
$000 |
$000 |
$000 |
% |
|
Child
Care |
(1,725) |
(40,290) |
(38,565) |
96% |
|
Public
Health |
(1,770) |
(7,933) |
(6,968) |
88% |
|
Employment
& Financial Assistance |
(635) |
(37,636) |
(37,338) |
99% |
|
Long
Term Care |
(8,935) |
(11,300) |
(9,156) |
81% |
|
|
(13,065) |
(97,159) |
(92,027) |
95% |
Additional Corporate Gapping Target
An additional option recommended by staff during the 2007 budget process
was to increase the City’s gapping provision by $5.0 million. The Operating Budget Omnibus motion 8/6 was
adopted by Council setting a $2.6 million corporate gapping target. This target has been amended and increased
to $3.0 million. The Long Term Care
(LTC) Branch allocation of the compensation reduction option along with the
above option of reflecting the additional revenue associated with the shortfall
in provincial cost sharing would have created a $0.4 million surplus situation
in the LTC budget. The LTC branch budget has been adjusted to show their
expenditures fully funded from provincial and resident revenues with the
residual $0.4 million added to the corporate gapping target.
A review and allocation of this corporate gapping provision will be
undertaken during 2007 and will be reported to Council in the ensuing quarterly
status reports.
Diesel Fuel Lock-in
Another option that was approved by Council during the 2007 budget
process was to lock-in diesel fuel prices at 80.00¢ per litre for the
last 9 months of 2007. Although not
categorized as an option with a “risk of achievement”, the following update is
provided.
Since July 2005, the City has
benefited from the lock-in price versus the floating monthly price, saving approximately $314,000. In December 2006, the City locked
in the first three months of 2007 at a price of 81.75¢ per litre.
In approving this option, Council
delegated the authority to lock-in the price for the remainder of the year
based on the advice from the City Treasurer. To date, the opportunity to
lock-in at a favourable price relative to the budget option has not presented
itself. At the time of preparing this report, the City is purchasing
diesel fuel at the floating price of
83.15¢. Lock-in prices for a six-month period are at 86.78¢. Staff is monitoring the NYMEX Heating
Oil prices on a daily basis for a shorter lock-in period. However at present, a one-month lock-in is
85.40¢ and a three-month lock-in
is 85.83¢.
During the course of
the year, Council will approve reports that may have funding implications for
the 2008 operating budget. This section of the
Quarterly report is provided to
keep Council apprised of their decisions and the impacts on the 2008
budget. In the January 1st
to March 31st time period, no reports have been approved by Council
with 2008 funding implications.
However, the 2007-2008 Provincial budget announced a 2% program rate increase effective November 1 2007 for families and individuals of Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program. Municipalities will not be required to cost share this increase until 2008. Based on preliminary analysis, it is projected that the City’s share of the rate increases will increase the City’s 2008 budget by $1.3 million.
CONSULTATION
All departments were consulted in the
preparation of this report.
The additional operating pressures as identified in the report will be included
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A – 2007 Provincial Budget / Impact on City of Ottawa
Appendix B - 2007 Operating Status
Report as of March 31, 2007.
Appendix C - 2007 Compensation & Benefits / Overtime Report as of March 31,
2006.
Appendix A
Ottawa and the 2007 Provincial Budget
The following are highlights of the 2007 Provincial Budget
In reviewing the Provincial Budget documents, specific references to the City of Ottawa can be found in only a few areas:
In the “Infrastructure Backgrounder”, the section “Investing in Transportation Infrastructure” states:
“Other new
projects include: widening of…Highway 417 in Ottawa.”
Also in the same Backgrounder, the section on “Investing in Community and Social Infrastructure” references:
“Funding the construction of new cancer treatment programs…as well as renovating and expanding existing centres in Ottawa…”
Specific details on funding and timeframes are not provided in the Budget document.
Specific new monies were announced in a number of program areas, which did not make reference to the City of Ottawa. However, the amount of funding that the City can expect to receive were outlined in a press release from MPP Jim Watson’s office:
o A total of $127 million province-wide was contained in the budget document for new affordable housing or to rehabilitate existing housing. Ottawa’s share of these funds was $7.12 million.
o The budget also announced a 2% program rate increase effective November 1 2007 for families and individuals of Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program. Municipalities will not be required to cost share this increase until 2008. Based on preliminary analysis, it is projected that the City’s share of the rate increases will increase the City’s 2008 budget by $1.3 million.
o The Province’s minimum wage is to be phased-in to $10.25 / hour by 2010 from the current $8.00 / hour rate. Three annual increases of $0.75 / hour are to be implemented starting March 31 2008. A separate analysis on the impact of this increase has already been forwarded to Councillors.
o The press release speaks to approximately $47 million as Ottawa’s share from the “public transit trust” for infrastructure. The only reference to this trust is found within the section “2006-07 Interim Fiscal Performance – Revenue Changes”. In this section the notes make reference that the Government of Canada Transfers are $596 million above the original provincial estimates for 2006-07 with $117 million in the Public Transit Capital Trust. This is one time funding from the 2006-07 surplus. This is non-conditional funds of which the City has received $46.883 million.
o The Provincial budget also contains
the following statement: “In 2006–07,
Ontario will invest $277 million for transit infrastructure, distributed to municipalities
on the basis of transit ridership. Ontario will also provide $75 million to
municipalities, also to be distributed on the basis of transit ridership, for
public transit capital.” Further
discussions are required with the Province to determine Ottawa’s share of these
funds and whether they represent additional funds available to fund transit
related expenditures.
o The budget appears to reaffirm the Province’s $200 million commitment for public transit - “The Province supports public transit and remains committed to improvements to transit in the City of Ottawa in cooperation with municipal and federal partners.”
o In the section “Other Supports for Vulnerable Ontarians – Investments to Improve Social Infrastructure” new funding of $48 million is provided for hospices, community citizenship centres, community recreational centres and developmental services. The press release indicates that Ottawa’s share will be $5 million through the use of examples - the Hunt Club-Riverside Drive Community Centre ($3.0 million) and the Albion-Heatherington Community Centre ($2.0 million). However, both of these projects have already been approved and funded by Council during the 2007 budget process. The $5.2 million received is unconditional funding.
o Although not contained in the Provincial budget on March 22, an announcement was made by MPP Jim Watson on March 23 advising that the Old Firehall Community Centre in Ottawa South is to receive $200,000 to assist in the expansion plans to better serve the recreational needs of the community. It is unclear as to whether these funds are in addition to the “Investments to Improve Social Infrastructure” as discussed above or are included as part of the City’s allocation.
o The press release (and the budget document) announces $2 million for the 2009 World Junior Hockey Championship. These funds are to be flowed to the organizing committee.
Of greater concern is the impact of lower BET rates on the payments-in- lieu-of-taxes (PIL’s) on Federal and Provincial properties. At present, the education portion of these payments is a revenue source to the City. It is estimated that the BET phase-in will reduce PILT payments to the City by approximately $1 million in each year of the 7-year phase-in period.
|
Corporate Services
and Economic Development
Committee Report 8 |
|
Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique rapport 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Extract
of draft Minutes 9 15 may 2007 |
|
Extrait de l’ébauche du
procès-verbal 9 – 15 mai 2007 |
OPERATING STATUS REPORT - MARCH 31, 2007
RAPPORT D’ÉTAPE DES DÉPENSES DE
FONCTIONNEMENT -
31 MARS 2007
ACS2007-CMR-FIN-0006 city-wide
/ À l’Échelle de la ville
Ms. M. Simulik, City
Treasurer and Director of Financial Services, provided Committee with a brief
overview of the staff report. With
respect to the report recommendation in particular, Ms. Simulik indicated the
funds were provided by the Province as part of its budget announcements on
March 22. Because of the timing, the
funds came to the City as unconditional, which meant the City was not required
to report back to the Province on how the funds had been used. She advised that she had no delegated
authority to move the funds, which was why she was coming to Committee and
Council with a recommendation. She
explained that the tax stabilization reserve would effectively serve as a
holding account until Council had deliberated on its priorities and decided how
it would spend the money.
Councillor Deans indicated
she would be moving a motion recommending that $7.1 million of the $59.203
million be transferred to a housing reserve fund.
When asked to comment on the
motion, Mr. Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager of Community and Protective
Services, clarified that the $7.1 million referenced in the motion had
originated from the Federal Government which, through a motion on Parliament
Hill, had set aside $1 billion for housing.
That money was announced in October 2006. In January 2007, the Province of Ontario received $392 million as
its share. The Province then released
the money to municipalities in March 2007, at which time the City of Ottawa
received $7.1 million. He explained
that in his letter, the Provincial Minister had stated the intent was for the
money to be used for housing under a program called “Delivering Opportunities
for Ontario Renters” (DOOR). This was
one-time capital funding to improve the housing stock in the community. Mr. Kanellakos noted that subsequently,
Minister Watson had announced that the entire $60 million received by the City
from the Province was unconditional; to be used as Council directed. Mr. Kanellakos re-iterated that this was
entirely Federal government funding, which had flowed to the City through the
Province. He advised that when the City
received the $7.1 million, the Housing Branch did some consultation with the housing
community and various stakeholders to determine how best to use the money and
there was unanimous consensus that the funds should be used to fix the existing
housing stock, which is an urgent need in the community.
In response to a question
from Councillor Jellett, Ms. Simulik confirmed that, as explained by Mr.
Kanellakos, the $7.1 million referenced in Councillor Deans’ motion was Federal
funding that had flowed to the City through the Province and that the funds had
always been intended for housing.
However, she also confirmed that the Province had since indicated the
funding was unconditional.
Responding to a further
question from Councillor Jellett, Mr. Kirkpatrick, City Manager, stated staff’s
recommendation was that the money be put into a tax stabilization reserve fund
until Council had completed its priority setting exercise and determined its
high-level fiscal directions. He
explained that it was always management’s sense that Council should look to use
the funds for their intended purposes, but that exactly how the funds were used
should be determined after Council had set its high level directions. However, he submitted that was somewhat
mitigated by what Mr. Kanellakos had described in terms of immediate and
pressing needs for repairs to the existing housing stock, which Committee may
want to take into account.
Committee then heard from
the follow public delegations.
Ms. M.-M. Hale, Chair of the
Alliance to End Homelessness, expressed dismayed over the recommendation to
transfer of the $59 million to the City’s tax stabilization reserve fund. She noted that the $7.1 million for housing
had come from a special reserve fund and she felt it would be shameful to use
it otherwise. She maintained that
affordable housing was urgently needed and therefore that should be Council’s
priority. Ms. Hale expressed support
for Councillor Deans’ motion.
Mr. J. Zebrowski,
Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, Ontario Council, referenced the number of
co-operative housing units in Canada, noting that they were an important part of
the solution to homelessness and under-housing. He expressed concerns over the staff recommendation, suggesting
that it did not reflect the considerable efforts made by City Council, staff
and the community to address homelessness and the affordable housing
crisis. To highlight the seriousness of
the affordable housing crisis, Mr. Zebrowski quoted various figures with
respect to vacancy rates and housing stocks.
He noted that over the five years, rental housing had usually been
stimulated by local government involvement in affordable rental housing. He maintained that the City had a huge
challenge ahead with respect to affordable housing and would need strong
partnerships with senior levels of government to even begin to face this
challenge successfully. In closing, he
discussed the potential impact on the City’s reputation, should Council set
aside federal and provincial dollars intended for housing, and urged Committee
and Council to use the funds for their intended purpose.
Responding to questions from
Committee members, Mr. Zebrowski confirmed his understanding of the
recommendation. However, he indicated
the community was concerned with the eventual use of the $7.1 million intended
for housing and was seeking some assurances from Committee and Council that the
funds would be used for their intended purpose. With respect to how the $7.1 million should be used, Mr.
Zebrowski acknowledged a need for new units but noted that the City could not
afford to not fix existing units in need of repair. Therefore, he believed funds should be allocated to both
uses. Speaking to the recommendation of
putting the money in a reserve fund for now, he noted that the money had
already been a long time coming and maintained that it was needed sooner rather
than later.
Councillor Deans indicated
she would amend her motion to direct that staff report to the Community and
Protective Services Committee with recommendations as to how to allocate the
funds.
Ms. F. Klodawsky,
Multi-Faith Housing Initiative, discussed examples of unsafe housing conditions
and maintained that the $7.1 million for housing was urgently needed and would
be well spent to improve the quality of life for tenants in old and poorly
maintained housing.
Responding to questions from
Councillor El-Chantiry, Ms. Klodawsky indicated she felt the Housing Branch
should decide how best to use the funds; whether to provide new units, repair
existing stock, or a combination thereof.
Ms. D. Barton, Ottawa Social
Housing Network, spoke to the federal government’s intent in setting up the Affordable
Housing Trust, the source of the $7.1 million transferred to the City by the
Province for affordable housing. In
transferring the money to the City, the Province referenced a program called
“Delivering Opportunities for Ontario Renters” (DOOR). She felt there was a morel and ethical
imperative to use the money for its intended purpose. She discussed the need for affordable housing in Ottawa and she
reminded Committee of the importance of the work done by her organization and
others like it. In closing, she urged
Committee to support Councillor Deans’ motion.
A copy of Ms. Barton’s written comments are held on file with the City Clerk.
Mr. M. Bulthuis, Vice-Chair
of the Health and Social Services Advisory Committee, referenced his Committee’s
mandate; to provide a forum for citizens to raise issues and concerns related
to health and social services and to provide advice on matters pertaining to
the development of policies, programs and service delivery. As such, he reported that the Advisory
Committee consistently heard from members of the community with respect to the
insufficient stock of affordable and adequate housing. He indicated the Advisory Committee worked
hard to monitor the landscape with respect to affordable and supportive
housing. He referenced the $7.1 million
dollars transferred from the Province for affordable housing, the fact that the
funds had been long awaited, and the consultation undertaking by housing staff
on how best to use the funds. In
closing, he urged Committee and Council to use the funds for their intended
purpose and to do so as soon as possible as opposed to transferring the money
to a reserve fund until after Council’s priority setting exercise. A copy of Mr. Bulthuis’ written comments are
held on file with the City Clerk.
Ms. M. Nelson, Association
of Social Workers, indicated her organization had participated in the consultation with
the Housing Branch on the disposition of the $7.1 million transferred by the
Federal Government through the Province.
She advised that at the time, participants felt they were participating
in good faith in an exercise to determine how best to use the money to improve
housing in Ottawa. She spoke to the
difficulty the City had in receiving funds for housing from other levels of
government and the difficulty of providing housing without funding from other
levels of government. She expressed
concerns for the community’s vulnerable population; children living in poverty,
homeless people, those on waiting lists for affordable and safe housing, and
those in affordable housing who are living in abominable conditions. In closing, Ms. Nelson expressed support for
all the delegations appearing before Committee and she urged members to support
moving the funds to the Housing Branch.
Ms. S. Husne Ara and Ms. M.
Summers, City for All Women Initiative (CAWI), spoke from a written submission (held on
file with the City Clerk). In their
submission, Ms. Husne Ara and Ms. Summers spoke against the report
recommendation to transfer $59.203 million to a tax stabilization reserve fund
pending the outcome of Council’s strategic planning exercise. The reminded Committee that during the
budget process, women wrote to Council and spoke at Committee of the Whole with
respect to the dire need for additional affordable housing in Ottawa and for
repairs to existing housing stock. They
talked about the stressed experienced by those in need of safe and affordable
housing and they urged Committee to transfer the $7.1 million intended for
housing to the Housing Branch.
Ms. P. Cripps, Co-operative
Housing Association of Eastern Ontario, reminded members of a breakfast meeting held in
early April in the Councillors’ Lounge where her organization had presented its
mandates and successes to members of Council.
She advised that on April 24, at the invitation of the Housing Branch,
the housing community met to reach a shared agreement on how best to allocate
the $7.1 million allocated to the City for housing. She expressed appreciation for both of the referenced
events. However, she expressed surprise
when, on May 9, the housing community learned of a recommendation to transfer
all of the provincial funding into a tax stabilization reserve fund. She maintained that in just over 30 days,
there had been a complete reversal of intent on the part of the City. She argued that waiting lists had not
shortened, unit counts had not increased and low income families had not
vanished. She submitted that spending
$1,000 today on maintaining existing units would save tens of thousands of
dollars in the future. In closing, Ms.
Cripps strongly urged Committee and Council to not transfer the $7.1 million
intended for housing into the tax stabilization reserve fund.
Ms. K. Sexsmith,
Co-operative Housing Association of Eastern Ontario, suggested one of the
problems with deferring the allocation to housing was that deferral could often
result in cancellation. She noted it
could take up to two years to actually put together a development project. She maintained that while this was a small
amount of money, it could go a long way in securing those development
projects. She was also concerned with
the notion of credibility. She recalled
that for a long time, the City had been asking the Provincial and Federal
governments to contribute funding for housing.
Now that funding had been allocated, she feared that putting it aside
instead of using it as intended would jeopardize the City’s credibility.
The Committee received
written submissions from the following groups and individuals, all of which are
held on file with the City Clerk:
•
The
Poverty Issues Advisory Committee, memo dated 15 May 2007
•
The
City for All Women Initiative, e-mail and letter dated 15 May 2007
•
The
Alliance to End Homelessness, e-mail and letter dated 14 May 2007
•
The
Canadian Mental Health Association, letter dated 14 May 2007
•
Mr.
M. Buckthought, e-mail dated 14 May 2007
Councillor Deans read her
motion into the record, which she indicated she had amended to direct that
staff administer the $7.1 million for housing as soon as possible. She noted Committee had heard overwhelmingly
from the housing community that they had been waiting for these funds for a
long time. She recalled the
difficulties and challenges faced by the City of Ottawa with respect to
housing, noting it was one of the City’s key challenges, and that there were
over 10,000 people on waiting lists.
She felt the money was urgently needed and she did not want to see it
caught up in a tax stabilization reserve fund.
She maintained that the funds were always intended for housing and this
was one of the greatest needs facing the City.
She noted that staff had been working with housing providers and they
therefore had a very clear sense on how to move forward. In closing, she recommended against putting
the money into a reserve fund and instead, she urged Committee members to
support her motion to transfer the funds to the Housing Branch so that staff
could use them as soon as possible to address the urgent needs in the
community.
Councillor Jellett took the
opportunity to comment the upper levels of government for passing on the
funding and for doing so without strings attached. He noted that this allowed Council to make the decision as to where
the money should be spent. However, he
recognized that the intent had clearly been for these funds to be used towards
housing and he acknowledged the urgent need for same.
Responding to a question
from Councillor Jellett, Mr. Kanellakos advised that, based on consultation
with the housing community, staff intended to use the funding for urgent
repairs and maintenance of existing housing stock.
Councillor Feltmate
expressed her support for Councillor Deans’ motion and she encouraged Committee
members to support it. She felt it
would be unconscionable to even think of not using these funds immediately
given the urgent need for them and the fact that they had been long
awaited. She reminded Committee of a
crisis faced by Council early in the previous term with respect to Ottawa
Housing and of the fact that the City’s Housing Branch served the community’s
most vulnerable people. She maintained
that providing safe, affordable housing was a priority and therefore, she saw no
need to await the outcome of Council’s priority setting exercise before moving
forward with the $7.1 million.
Councillor Chiarelli
acknowledged the various arguments being made by those wanting to move forward
and allocate the $7.1 million to the Housing Branch. However, he argued that the imbalance between the City and the
upper levels of government went beyond the issue of housing; it touched every
area of the City’s priorities. He
maintained the purpose of the priority setting exercise was to get a handle of
where Council ranked the City’s spending and its needs. He believed that approved Councillor Deans’
motion would open the door for other members of Council to bring forward
motions and argue for priorities, which would soon deplete the money and negate
the priority-setting exercise. Although
he expressed his intention of supporting the allocation of the $7.1 million to
housing as part of the priority setting exercise, he maintained that it did not
make sense to do so in advance of that exercise.
Councillor Bloess expressed
concerns over piece-mealing the money.
He wondered how much money had been allocated to housing in the last
budget, over and above the base budget.
Ms. Simulik indicated the amount was $8.1 million.
Responding to a further
question from Councillor Bloess, Ms. Simulik re-iterated that the funds had
initially been released to the City with reference to the DOOR program but that
subsequent to that, the Province had indicated the funding was unconditional,
therefore Council could decide how it wanted to spend the money.
Councillor Bloess felt the
money was clearly intended for housing.
Therefore he expressed support for Councillor Deans’ motion, though he
felt there was a better way to flow money into worthwhile initiatives.
Councillor Holmes
re-iterated Mr. Kanellakos’ earlier explanation as to the history of how the
money had flowed to the City. She
referenced the work it had taken to get upper levels of government to recognize
the need and to contribute funding towards housing and she maintained the need
to spend the money on housing. She
strongly urged Committee and Council to not delay in using the money for its
intended purpose.
Councillor El-Chantiry
indicated he would also be moving a motion.
He acknowledged the arguments being made in support of using the $7.1
million for housing and remarked that no one was suggesting otherwise. He maintained the question was whether to do
it immediately or whether to wait until after Council had completed its
priority setting exercise. He
recognized that some colleagues felt the money should be allocated to housing
immediately and he indicated he had no problem with that. He noted that Mayor O’Brien would be meeting
with the Premier in June and he referenced a recent survey, which indicated
that 17% of Ottawa’s residents were unhappy with road condition and
sidewalks. He expressed his hope that
the Mayor would be able to get a commitment for more funding from the Province
for all of the City’s priorities, however he introduced a motion to allocated
$10 million of the $59.203 million to road repair and rehabilitation.
Committee voted on
Councillor Deans’ motion before moving to discussions on Councillor
El-Chantiry’s motion.
Moved by Councillor D. Deans
WHEREAS Item 11 of the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee meeting recommends the
transfer of $59.203 million in Provincial funds to the City’s Tax Stabilization
Reserve Fund,
AND WHEREAS included in that
$59 million is $7.1 million of federal housing money, which the Province has
recently transferred to the City of Ottawa,
AND WHEREAS this money is
earmarked for housing projects in Ottawa;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT $7.1 million of the $59.203 million of Provincial funds be transferred to
the Housing Reserve Fund and that staff be directed to administer the funds as
soon as possible.
CARRIED with Councillor R.
Chiarelli dissenting
Speaking to Councillor
El-Chantiry’s motion, Councillor Cullen noted that of the $59.203 million the
City received, some $46.8 million was funding for infrastructure from the
Public Transit Trust.
Responding to a question
from Councillor Cullen, Ms. Simulik indicted the Public Transit Trust money was
really not a program that existed. She
explained that was simply how the Province decided to announced the funding
allocation. In their letter to the City
transferring the money, the Province indicated it was unconditional but that
they hoped it would be spend on transit needs.
Councillor Cullen referenced
gaps in the City’s transitway system and wondered if that use of the money
would be consistent with what the Province had announced. Depending on what Council decided late this
year with respect to its over-all short-term and long-term Capital program for
Transit, Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed that such a use would be appropriate.
Although he expressed
sympathy with respect to the City’s deteriorating road infrastructure,
Councillor Cullen raised the issue of ethics.
He maintained that if the City lobbied for funding for transit, once
received, such funds should be used for transit. He referenced the City’s tremendous public transit needs and he
expressed his hope that the money would be used for transit; to fill in the
gaps in the existing transitway system or to develop a rapid transit plan.
Councillor Bloess
re-iterated his concerns with respect to piece-mealing, suggesting that if
everyone started peeling off parts of the $60 million, before long, there would
be nothing left. Although he recognized
the needs in rural areas with respect to road repair, he maintained this was
not the way to deal with this money. He
felt the balance should be moved into the tax stabilization reserve fund to
then be considered in a logical, rational and pragmatic way.
Councillor Chiarelli feared
that because the $7.1 million referenced in Councillor Deans’ motion had now
been designated to housing, as originally intended, some would interpret that
to mean that the rest of the $60 million had also already been
categorized. He maintained that was not
the case because the money had come to the City as unconditional. He spoke to the extent of the problems with
respect to road conditions in rural areas, referenced the money being given to
transit in Ottawa, and argued that in the rural area, transit meant putting
more money into the road network. Rural
residents need those roads to get around.
He stressed the importance of recognizing this need in rural areas and
to send a message that the vote on Councillor Deans’ motion was not simply a
vote to set the priorities in advance of the priority setting session.
Councillor Jellett asked for
a friendly amendment to add the word “rural” to Councillor El-Chantiry’s
motion. He felt the point had been well
made that in the rural community, roads are the only means of transit. He noted that increasingly, the City
subsidized transit elsewhere in the City through tax dollars and he re-iterated
the urgent need for road work and road repairs in rural areas. He indicated some roads were in such bad
condition that school buses no longer traveled them. He maintained the City had allowed this deterioration and that it
was shameful. Therefore, he urged
Committee members to support Councillor El-Chantiry’s motion.
Councillor El-Chantiry
accepted the friendly amendment and revised his motion accordingly. He referenced Councillor Bloess’ comments
about piece-mealing and indicated he had not intended to move this motion
today. However, he advised that having
spoken to the Mayor and members of the Ontario Legislature about the conditions
of rural roads in Ottawa, he had quickly been told that the City had received
unconditional funding and could use it as it saw fit. He maintained that in rural areas, roads are the only means of
transportation and he advised that some roads had deteriorated to the point
where emergency vehicles avoided them.
He referenced the recent survey, which suggested the condition of roads
was a concern for 17% of residents city-wide and he encouraged members to
support his motion.
Moved by Councillor E. El-Chantiry
WHEREAS our roads are in
very bad condition,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT $10 Million of the $59.203 Million of Provincial funds be transferred to
rural road repair and rehabilitation.
Carried
YEAS (5): G. Brooks, R. Chiarelli, E. El-Chantiry,
R. Jellett, Mayor O’Brien
NAYS (3): R. Bloess, P. Hume, S. Desroches
Committee then voted on the
item as amended.
1. WHEREAS Item 11 of the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee meeting recommends the
transfer of $59.203 million in Provincial funds to the City’s Tax Stabilization
Reserve Fund,
AND WHEREAS included in that
$59 million is $7.1 million of federal housing money, which the Province has
recently transferred to the City of Ottawa,
AND WHEREAS this money is
earmarked for housing projects in Ottawa;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT $7.1 million of the $59.203 million of Provincial funds be transferred to
the Housing Reserve Fund and that staff be directed to administer the funds as
soon as possible.
2. WHEREAS our roads are in very bad condition,
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT $10 Million of the $59.203 Million of Provincial funds be
transferred to rural road repair and rehabilitation.
CARRIED
as amended