Report to the Hunt Club Community Organization

December 7, 1998

From Regional Councillor Wendy Stewart

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

There has been considerable debate in recent years, given this Region’s many layers of government, that the National Capital Commission (NCC) has outlived its mandate and should be disbanded.

I disagree.

The National Capital Region is still in need of a federally-funded body, comprised of representatives from across this great country, to make decisions on lands in the "national interest". In fact, the NCC has recently completed the NILM (National Interest Land Mass) Study, which has enabled it to clearly define which lands in their ownership are important to all Canadians, and which are not. This will allow federal dollars to be concentrated on appropriate properties and initiatives. So far, so good.

It is the fate of residual lands that has stirred up controversy. One such parcel is the greenspace that divides the Riverside Park and Hunt Club communities known as the Southern Corridor. It is valued as a natural wildlife linkage between the Sawmill Creek and Rideau River watersheds, and includes the environmentally sensitive McCarthy Woods. This land was acquired by the NCC long ago for transportation purposes, a use that is no longer required. It is among the properties that have been declared "surplus" in the NILM Study.

The federal government, as pressed for cash as the rest of us, has directed the NCC to dispose of all these "surplus" properties. This is where the trouble begins.

It seems that Treasury Board allows the NCC to keep the proceeds from such sales for operating and capital expenses. The NCC is attempting to generate as much profit as possible from the disposal of these surplus properties to offset their own financial difficulties. While this might not be popular locally, it is not unreasonable.

What is extremely objectionable, however, is the NCC’s attempts to up-zone these parcels of land before putting them on the market. By using local planning processes, such as Neighbourhood Plans, the NCC is influencing land-use designations to increase the value of its properties. This is not necessarily in the best interest of local communities.

Those who have participated in the Riverside Park or Hunt Club Neighbourhood Plans know how frustrating this can be. Municipal governments are under tremendous pressure to comply with the NCC’s wishes. This may eventually erode public confidence in the objectivity of municipal planning processes. For example, on one tract of waterfront open space along the Rideau River, City Planners were informed in writing on five separate occasions by RMOC that what the NCC was proposing was unsuitable for the site. Nonetheless, the final draft included this inappropriate re-zoning at the NCC’s insistence.

All this begs the real question. Why would we allow a body that has already determined the lands in question are not significant to their mandate, to influence the future use of the property? The federal government has no interest in pursuing development of the Southern Corridor, and has declared it surplus. Why should representatives from across Canada, appointed to the NCC Board of Directors, be able to secretly vote on whether we ought to have low, medium or high density housing? This is particularly galling when the lands in question are deemed to have high local and regional significance by local residents. It is no wonder people are dissatisfied with a process that makes public consultation a sham.

What would happen if the NCC simply put the Southern Corridor on the market with the existing "light industrial" zoning? A developer would likely get a much different reception at City Hall, particularly on the areas that are designated environmentally significant. More importantly, this allows residents to hold their elected representatives accountable for their decisions.

The NCC should stick to what it does best -- creating a beautiful and functional capital city for all Canadians. Lands acquired years ago that are now surplus should be offered to municipalities at cost, and then to the private sector as appropriate. Land use planning must not be manipulated to enrich NCC coffers at the expense of our communities.

Note: With regard to the National Capital Commission’s public statement at the November 24^th Hunt Club Neighbourhood Plan meeting that they have written to both the City of Ottawa and the RMOC asking to begin discussions on the transfer of the Southern Corridor Open Space, the Commissioner of Planning and Development at the RMOC immediately indicated to Mr. Curry Wood at the NCC that the Region was willing to enter into negotiations. We are awaiting notice of a meeting with Mr. Curry Wood from the NCC and Mr. Ted Robinson from the City of Ottawa.

I am pleased to report that the Region of Ottawa-Carleton has completed an evaluation of alternative sites for replacement of the aging Alta Vista water storage tank. Thirteen sites were evaluated using selection criteria that address social, economic and environmental issues. The three most preferred sites have now been identified. Two potential sites which would have impacted the Hunt Club Community did not rank among the top three.

The third and final community forum on the comprehensive review of OC Transpo services is scheduled for:

At this meeting, KPMG, the consulting firm carrying out this review, will present their final recommendations on strategies for increasing transit ridership by 75% by year 2021. Participants will have an opportunity to express their opinions on these important recommendations.

On November 5^th, the Minister of Finance for Ontario introduced legislation intended to protect taxpayers, particularly small business, from the significant impacts of tax reform. If passed, the Fairness for Property Taxpayers Act, 1998, guarantees that no commercial or industrial property owner would face a tax increase related to property tax reform of more than 10% in 1998, and a further 5% in each of 1999 and 2000. In addition, Mr. Eves proposes to introduce an amendment when the legislation goes to Standing Committee, to protect multi-residential taxpayers under the same limits as the commercial and industrial properties.

Unfortunately, these changes will have a devastating impact on Ottawa-Carleton businesses and municipal governments.

• The cost of this "cap" is to be funded from within the commercial and industrial classes (and later, multi-residential), from those properties that would otherwise be receiving a decrease. Of course, at this point, many of those taxpayers have already received and paid their 1998 property tax bills. It will now be necessary to advise them that they will have to pay more, although some will receive refunds. This legislation also repeals the rebate by-law that Regional Council already passed to help mitigate the impact of assessment-related tax increases.
• Provincial staff have made it clear that the legislation would apply to all commercial and industrial properties in Ontario with no exceptions. This means that large commercial properties with a tax increase greater than the cap will be subsidized by properties that would otherwise be receiving decreases, including small commercial properties.

• The legislation dramatically affects the Payments-in-lieu (of taxes), or PILs as they are commonly called, which has a tremendous impact on the Region’s budget. For example: in 1997 the Dept. of Public Works paid the city of Ottawa $79 million in PILs and, due to Current Value Assessment were prepared to cut a cheque for $105 million in 1998 taxes. As a result of the "cap" the City has now received payment in full for $86 million – a shortfall of $19 million which will have to be recovered from other taxable properties within the Region. The loss to local governments over the next 3 years has been estimated at $111.2 million, ($54.3 million at the Region and $56.9 million in area municipalities, principally the city of Ottawa). In the development of the 1999 Regional Budget Draft Estimates, staff had, as a result of CVA, contemplated new PIL revenues in the amount of $26 million as well as the carryforward of 1998 additional PIL revenues of $15 million. All this additional revenue has now been put in serious doubt by the mandatory capping legislation.
• With respect to the PIL issue, you may have heard provincial staff report that the legislation proposes to exempt the federal and provincial governments from the cap. Unfortunately, the federal government has advised that it will not recognize this exemption. They refuse to pay more than the legislation prescribes. The Finance Commissioner from RMOC and Treasurers from Ottawa and Gloucester took local concerns to Queen’s Park, but the provincial government refused to exempt Ottawa-Carleton from this legislation.

The provincial government has, however, indicated its willingness to work cooperatively and constructively over the next several weeks to achieve the mutual goal of protecting taxpayers within the parameters of the new legislation while continuing to respect federal principles. Regional Council passed a Resolution at its special meeting on November 9^th that could salvage these critical grants for the Region and area municipalities.

The proposed solution would first allow all properties that previously paid very little or no Business Occupancy Tax to move to the new single tax rate before applying the cap. This includes federal properties as well as some other property taxpayers which did not pay the full BOT. Such an amendment would reflect the federal requirement that its properties are treated the same as other taxpayers. The province is considering this strategy.

The impact of this new legislation is of such additional significance to the overall tax requirement that staff now feel it would not be advisable to proceed any further with the 1999 Regional Budget development until we have more information. The Draft Estimate documents were tabled at a Regional Council meeting on Nov. 25^th, on the understanding that these issues will be resolved. Copies of the draft estimates are available upon request.

Other legislative changes over the past year have had the effect of dramatically increasing the policy role of Regional government with regard to municipal property taxation. RMOC is now responsible for setting tax ratios for the seven standard property classes under this new system, which determines the relative tax burdens for each property class.

The purpose of the Property Tax Policy Committee is to provide residents, landlords, homeowners, tenants and business in Ottawa-Carleton with a forum to provide input with respect to the setting of tax ratios for 1999. The Committee will be organizing the necessary public forums and reporting back to Council with recommendions for a decision in March of next year.

Based on consultation with the public over the past few months, it is clear that there is a demand from representatives of the non-residential property classes to have Council move towards the "fairness ranges" for tax ratios established by the province. This will reduce commercial rates, but increase the tax burden on the residential property class. Some businesses have also suggested the creation of a new "small business property class", although current legislation does not allow for municipalities to do so. RMOC is hoping to exploit the knowledge and experience of the private sector and other stakeholders of all property groups in formulating these important social equity and economic development policy issues.

One of the functions transferred from the province to municipalities last year was property assessment. It is believed that a new corporation, comprised of municipal leaders can deliver the service more effectively and efficiently than the current $123 million provincial program.

To achieve this end, the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation or OPAC, was created as a corporation without share capital under the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation Act, 1997. This Act was part of the Bill 164, Tax Credits to Create Jobs Act, 1997. OPAC replaces the Property Assessment Commissioner and establishes powers over assessment in the province.

This new corporation will be responsible for the delivery of assessment services (preparing the assessment roll for each municipality, enumeration for elections, annual school support lists etc.), including meeting operational needs such as leasing arrangements, technology development and alternate revenue sources for assessment data. Regional government still has no responsibility for property assessment, other than to pay the amount required by OPAC.

OPAC is currently negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with the Province of Ontario for the transfer of the Property Assessment Division to OPAC. At the present time, personnel of the Ministry of Finance’s Property Assessment Division are still members of the Province of Ontario’s public service – reporting and responsible to the ADM of the Property

Assessment Division and ultimately to the Minister of Finance. The OPAC Board expects to have the MOU completed and the property assessment function transferred from the Province to OPAC by December 31, 1998.

In preparation for assuming the full responsibility for ambulance service delivery, the Region of Ottawa-Carleton asked a recognized expert in ambulance services to conduct an independent audit of response times in Ottawa-Carleton. Using 1997 Ministry of Health data, the expert reviewed how long it took for ambulances to respond, from the time the call is received to when the ambulance arrives at the address.

The results of the independent audit clearly indicate that the response times in Ottawa-Carleton are poor and do not meet minimum standards (when compared to other urban centres such as Toronto). The industry standard is 8 minutes, 59 seconds or less, 90% of the time. For Ottawa-Carleton’s urban area, the response time is between 13 minutes, 58 seconds, and 16 minutes 12 seconds, 90% of the time.

These results are based on fractile response time, measured at the 90^th percentile, rather than averages. While Provincial legislation (Ambulance Act, eg. Sections 42 and 56) refers to fractile response times, the Ministry of Health reports response times in Ottawa-Carleton using averages. Average response times do not accurately reflect the effectiveness of ambulance services. The use of averages only illustrates the response times for roughly half of the customers, whereas fractile response times at the 90^th percentile clearly illustrates what happens most of the time -- 9 times out of 10.

The report indicates that improving response time in Ottawa-Carleton will require control of dispatch and additional funding. Under the current downloading formula, the dispatch function is not included.

The report will be considered by Regional Council on December 9^th.