Loading...
2006/02/03 Additions to Monday's Agenda - Feb. 6~h, 2006 Deputations/Presentations 1. E-mail outlining participants appearing on behalf of Women's Place of South Niagara Inc. 2. Letter from Klm Craitor, M.P.P. re: Closure of Beds at GNGH (Please note Mr. Craitor states in his letter he will be attending Council on February 20th. His schedule subsequently changed.) 3. E-mail outlining the steps undertaken to set up the deputation regarding the Closure of Beds at GNGH. Planning Matters 1. E-mail exchange with Mr. Mike Cushman regarding the Proposed Amendments to the Community Improvement and Environmental Quality Policies of the Official Plan. Reports 1. Additional Report: HR-2006-02, Bill 206 - an Act to Revise OMERS. 2. F-2006-08, 2006 Interim Tax Levy *NOTE: page 2 of this report has been revised. NOTE: A full colour version of the attachment to F-2006-07, Low-Income Tax Deferral will be handed out on Monday. Sorry for the inconvenience. Finally, as always, hard copies of the above will be handed out Monday. From: "Women's Place of South Niagara Inc." <womensplace@bellnet.ca> To'. "Dean Iorfida" <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca> Date: 1/31/2006 11:27:34 AM Subject: RE: Women's Place South Niagara on Feb. Council Meeting Agenda Thanks Dean, you are great! The speakers will be: Inspector Brian Eckhardt of the Niagara Regional Police & Joe Talarico They are both co-chairs of the tournament. I will also attend for their support. Thanks, Tamara ..... Original Message ..... From: Dean Iorfida [mailto:diorfida@niagarafalls.ca] Sent: January 27, 2006 2:18 PM To: womensplace@bellnet.ca Subject: Re: Women's Place South Niagara on Feb. Council Meeting Agenda Tamara: The 6th it is! If you can e-mail the speakers by the end of the day or first thing Monday a.m. that would be most helpful. Thanks Dean >>> "Women's Place of South Niagara Inc." <womensplace@bellnet.ca> 1/27/2006 2:02 PM >>> Hi Dean, Thanks for calling me back. I would like to be added to the Feb. 6th City of Niagara Falls Council Meeting to bring up to speed on our Fundraising efforts for operating dollars which will include the 4th Annual "Strike Out Violence" Bowling Tournament hosted by Women's Place and The Niagara Regional Police Service. Please confirm with me when we are added to the agenda and I will let you know who will be coming to speak. Thanks as always!, Tamara Coleman-Lawrie lB mm RECEIV Ni~ara Falls ~ JAN 3 0 Tuesday, Janu~ 24, 2006 R'S 0~ Pa~ Leon ~~ Ch~, NHS Bo~d of Trustees c/o 142 Queenston S~eek St. Ca~adnes, On~o, L2R 7C6 and Mrs. Debbie Sevenpifer, President and CEO, And Dr. William Shragge, Chief of Staff Niagara Health System, CO~¢~ 142 Queenston Street, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2R 7C6 Dear Debbie, Patti and Dr. Shragge: Re: permanent Closure of Beds at Greater Nia_g~ara General.. This letter is a follow up to the meeting we had at Mayor Redekop's office in Fort Erie on November 28a` to discuss the issue of bed closures in the Niagara Area. As you know, at that meeting, I expressed along with Mayor Redekop and two Fort Erie doctors concerned about the dosure of the Fort Erie ICU beds. You assured me that the situation in Fort Erie was temporary and was due to staffing (the lack of cardiac-trained nurses) issues. You further indicated you expected the situation to rectify itself by early March. I was delighted to receive your press release of January 11a` confirming your intention to reopen those beds in mid March of this year. Also at that meeting, in which Mayor Salci of Niagara Falls was present, I indicated that I had concerns over the closure of 11 beds at GNGH. You indicated the situation at GNGH was different and that the NHS, after a review of data available to the NHS on best practices, had reached the conclusion they could safely reduce the number of beds without affecting the quality of patient care at GNGH. 3930 Montrose Road, Unit 8, Niagara Falls, ON L2H 3C9 T - (905) 357-0681 F - (905) 357-9456 E - kcraitor, mpp.co@hberal.ola, org Il 11- Kim Craitor, M.EP. Niagara Falls Subsequently I understand the Niagara Falls council became concerned and on Jan 4~ passed a resolution. The primary reason I gather from your response to Mayor Salci on January 11a was that you believed it would be a "more efficient use of our resources." I have to tell you that I continue to remain concerned and had the opportunity to personally visit GNGH and met with Doctors and staff as the beds were being phased out. In addition you should know I have had ca~s from some of the patients and their families' members expressing concerns about being shuffled about as staff had had to cope with the reduction in the number of beds. I also met with SEIU, ONA and OPSEU union representatives on this matter. There continues to be deep apprehension and much scepticism about this closure.. You indicated to me that the NHS would monitor these bed closures. I would appreciate knowing the metrics and or standards that you will be measuring in order to ensure you are providing the care required at GNGH. Should problems remain, or develop, I would like to be in a position to work with you and the Ministry to ensure that Niagara Falls has the resources to adequate serve its public through its local hospital. With that in mind I have been asked to speak with the city council and I agreed to on Febnmry 20t~, 2006 at 6:00 pm. I do hope you can attend with me to help fully explain the NHS position on this matter. Yours truly, Klm Craitor, MPP CC: Mayor and Members of the City of Niagara Falls Council 3930 Montrose Road, Unit 8, Niagara Falls, ON L2H 3C9 T - (905) 357-0681 F - (905) 357-9456 E - kcraitor, mpp.co@liberal.ola.org Il From: Dean Iorfida To: Carolynn Ioannoni Subject: Re: NHS deputation Monday night Carolynn: A fax was sent to Dr. Offierski earlier this week. His office contacted me yesterday to confirm receipt. They informed me that Dr. Offierski was in surgery during the morning. I provided my cell number as well and am confident that he will contact me today. I stated the following in my fax to Dr. Offierski: As you will note, part of the above motion invites representatives from doctors and nurses at GNGH to attend. Having noticed that you have spoken on hospital issues in the past, I am sending this "invite" to you to attend. I am not sure if you are the correct person to go to but I thought I would start with you. Also, you should appreciate that this deputation has come about rather quickly. My first priority was to line up Klm Craitor as I figured his schedule would be the toughest to accommodate. Originally, as I indicated to you before, Klm was slated to appear on February 20th then the following chain of events occurred: Late Thursday: Ron Planche called me to indicate that the 6th was now the preferred date. Friday morning: I e-mailed Debbie Sevenpifer of the NHS with a formal request. I reasoned that the NHS were probably the second most important participants to attend and would probably also be difficult to confirm. I followed up with a phone call to Debbie's office and spoke to her assistant. I specified that I needed to confirm the NHS's appearance by Monday at noon as I was finalizing the agenda for the 6th. Debbie did call me late Friday after I had left (approx. 5:15 p.m.) Monday: I played phone tag with Debbie all day and spoke to her assistant again. Despite not speaking to her I decided to list the item on the agenda anyway. Tuesday: Debbie and I connect. She confirms that the following will attend on behalf of NHS: Frank DeMizio, VP of Clinical Services at GNGH and Dr. Craig Muir, Surgeon, Clinical Utilization Program. Late Tuesday I prepare the fax for Dr. Offierski. Wednesday: I connected with Dr. Offierski's office. The exchange is already indicated above. I then try to find an appropriate nurse contact. I do extensive scouring of the internet trying to find contact for Heather Cross, who I believe to be the steward of the local nurses' union. I eventually end up contacting the Ontario Nurses Association. Due to confidentiality(?), they will not release information to me but after a full explanation of what I'm attempting they indicate that someone will contact me. I have yet to hear from anyone to represent the nurses. So as you can see there has been much done to arrange this deputation. I see it as a bit of a domino process: confirm Craitor first, confirm NHS second then invite doctors and nurses. As health issues are not issues we usually deal with at the municipality, I defer to your knowledge of any other appropriate participants. Fell free to invite anyone you feel should attend. If those individuals wish to speak have them contact me anytime up to Monday afternoon. Finally, how do you foresee this matter unfolding? The NHS wishes to make a (power point) presentation. I figure they could do this, Council can ask questions, any other of the deputants can speak etc. If you have any other ideas let me know. Thanks for your assistance on this. Dean >>> Carolynn Ioannoni 2/1/2006 6:38 PM >>> Dean I have left you a message on your voice mail but thought maybe you would check in to your email. The NHS presentation is under deputation for Monday night for closer to the end of the agenda. You asked me a couple of weeks ago who should be invited and I gave you 2 names, George Harpur and Chris Offierski but as of right now, tonight, neither has been invited. Could you please tell me who has been invited to speak for the physicians and why these 2 doctors have not been? Thanks. Carolynn From: Dean Iorflda To: Mike Cushman Subject: Re: Fwd: Mr. Cushman: I believe the item you are interested related to Proposed Amendments to the Community Improvement and Environmental Quality Policies of the City's Official Plan. The matter will be dealt with on Monday, Feb. 6th at 7:00 p.m. The matter is a public meeting under the Planning Act, therefore, you do not have to pre-register to speak. During the meeting, the Mayor will ask if there is anyone in attendance who wishes to speak and you can come forward at the time. I have included for your information Monday's Order of Business and a copy of the staff report. I would strongly suggest that you read the report before jumping to any conclusions. You will note a couple of things: 1. The Province has enacted legislation that has encouraged the re-development of Brownfields. 2. The report recommends the implementation of a new comprehensive Environmental Due Diligence Procedure. Sincerely, Dean Iorfida City Clerk >>> "Mike Cushman" <cusherman@msn.com> 1/31/2006 12:58 AM >>> Sorry I was mistaken with an attachment from a letter which I thought stated there was a meeting tonight but the meeting is feb 6,2006. I wish to speak at ths meeting if possible. sincerly Mike Cushman. >From: "Dean Iorfida" <diorfida(~,nia,qarafalls.ca> >To: <cusherman~msn.com> >Subject: Re: Fwd: >Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:06:33-0500 > >Mr. Cushman: > >Your e-mail was forwarded to me. You have me confused. > >Firstly, we do not have a Council meeting this evening. > >Secondly, what by-law are you referring to? Can you be more specific. > >Thanks >Dean Iorfida >City Clerk > > >>> Nathan Hyde 1/30/2006 2:57 PM >>> > > > >>> "Mike Cushman" <cusherman~,,msn.com> 1/30/2006 2:32 PM >>> > Hello this is Mike Cushman. I understand the city will be voting today >on >The adoption by-law is on tonight's agenda for approval. I urge council >members to ask the question of: > > VVho is this going to help. > > Are geared to income housing or the poor slated to have places built on >these contaminated sites ? > > The Adoption by-law is a cop out to enable contaminated lands to be >re-used, serving no-one but real estate revenues of some sort andTax >revenues...no emphasis is put on protecting our health and the environment. >Please pose these questions and points? > I will not be there tonight as I am working but I wish to speak at the >Feb 5 meeting. >Can some one please tell me the outcome of todays vote? > Corporate Services Department HR-2006-02 Human Resources Tony Ravenda The City of 4310 Queen Street Executive Director Niagara Falls P.O. Box 1023 Canada Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel.: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-7404 E-mail: travenda@city.niagarafalls.on.ca January 31, 2006 His Worship Mayor Ted Salci and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: HR-2006-02 - Bill 206 - an Act To Revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) RECOMMENDATION: For the information of council BACKGROUND: Bill 206 passed second reading in mid-December 2005. The changes to this bill affect such issues as governance, plan design, mediation/arbitration, and supplemental plans. Governance, Plan Design, and Mediation/Arbitration The bill grants autonomy to OMERS stakeholders and makes revisions to the Committees who will administer the plan concerning benefits and contribution rates. It also restructures the membership composition of these committees. Other changes include revisions to the voting method to authorize plan changes, the elimination of the mandate that OMERS plans be a defined benefit plan, and amendments to the process of arbitration or mediation to override committee decisions. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development - 2 - HR-2006-02 Supplemental Plans One of the most contentious issues is a requirement that a supplemental plan be established within 24 months after the Act comes into force which would allow police, fire, and paramedics the opportunity to negotiate pension improvements during collective bargaining and/or interest arbitration at the local level. This could have a significant negative effect on municipal budgets and property tax rates. Municipal organizations including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association (OMHRA) have made presentations strongly objecting to this provision and suggesting further review of all of the proposals contained in this Bill. Copies of both of their presentations are attached. The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), who represent City unionized staff, are also opposed to this Bill on the basis that they feel it would allow improved benefits for higher paid police, fire, and paramedic members at the expense of lower paid CUPE municipal workers. They also expressed concerns regarding accountability and financial stability. Recent news articles have indicated that the Ontario division of CUPE is promoting a province wide protest against this proposed legislation up to and including a possible strike. A copy of a recent CUPE release regarding Bill 206 is also attached.  Respectfully submitted: er- John MacDonald ManagO"of Employee Relations Chief Administrative Officer Approved by: Executive Director of Corporate Services ~. News Release 393 University Avenue, Suite '!70'1 Toronto, ON M5G 1E6 Tel: (416) 971-9856, fax: (416) 971-6191 e-mail: amo@amo.on.ca For immediate release NWS - 06/02 Province Determined to Impose New Pension Costs on Municipalities and Taxpayers Toronto, Ontario, February l, 2006 - The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is warning Ontario municipalities that their concerns about the Ontario Government's costly OMERS pension plan reforms have largely been ignored. Bill 206: An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, 2005, will proceed to clause by clause analysis today, without substantive amendments in favour of municipalities, employers or property tax payers. The Province is dismissing the best interests of OMERS members, pensioners, municipalities, tax payers and the long-term viability of the OMERS Pension Plan, by ensuring that police, flrefighters and paramedics have access to supplemental benefits, regardless of the cost. "The Province will accept the political credit for providing supplemental benefits, but not the added costs or the administrative headaches that will go along with them," said AMO President Roger Anderson. "Pension benefits are not free and the public knows it. Those who say these costly supplemental benefits won't be embraced by employees are the same people who have spent a decade lobbying for them. Tax increases are inevitable." AMO's initial analysis, using actuarial data supplied by OMERS, estimates that s.q.pplemental pension benefits the Bill would impose for select employees could cost as much as $380 million in new labour costs on municipal property taxpayers. This would represent an average municipal property tax increase of 3% province-wide, with no increase in services. Detailed analysis of the most recent amendments to Bill 206 is available on AMO's website, www.amo.on.ca. "The OMERS pension plan is already one of the most generous pension plans in Canada. Municipal taxpayers, particularly pensioners on fixed incomes, should not have to pay higher property taxes to fund even greater benefits for a select few." AMO is a non-profit organization representing almost all of Ontario's 445 municipal governments. AMO supports and enhances strong and effective municipal government in Ontario and promotes the value of municipal government as a vital and essential component of Ontario and Canada's political system. - 30 - Interested media should contact: Pat Vanini, AMO Executive Director, (416) 971-9856, ext 316; or 416-729-4394 Brian Lambie, AMO Media Contact, (416) 729-5425 393 University Avenue, Suite 1701 Toronto, ON M5G 1E6 Tel: (416) 971-9856 · fax: (416) 971-6191 e-mail: amo@amo.on.ca For immediate release NWS - 06/01 AMO Warns Against Passage of OMERS Bill 206 Toronto, Ontario, January 26, 2006 - Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) President Roger Anderson today joined the diverse chorus of stakeholders who are warning the Province against passage of Bill 206: An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, 2005. "Ontario municipalities are profoundly concerned about the impact of Bill 206," said Anderson in a submission to the Standing Committee on General Government. "The Province is rushing to reform one of Canada's most important pension funds without a reasonable understanding of the potential repercussions and without sufficient regard to the best interests of employees, retirees, employers and taxpayers." AMO's analysis, using actuarial data supplied by OMERS, estimates that supplemental pension benefits the Bill would impose for select employees could cost as much as $380 million in new labour costs on municipal property taxpayers. This would represent an average municipal property tax increase of 3% province-wide, with no increase in services. "The Province is ignoring the concerns and best interests of communities, seniors and property taxpayers in general," said Anderson. "The OMERS pension plan is already one of the most generous pension plans in Canada. Municipal taxpayers, particularly pensioners on fixed incomes, should not have to pay higher property taxes to fund even greater benefits for a select few." AMO is a non-profit organization representing almost all of Ontario's 445 municipal governments. AMO supports and enhances strong and effective municipal government in Ontario and promotes the value of municipal government as a vital and essential component of Ontario and Canada's political system. - 30 - Interested media should contact: Pat Vanini, AMO Executive Director, 416-971-9856, ext. 316 or 416-729-4394 Brian Lambie, ^MO Media Contact, 416-729-5425 Association of Municipalities of Ontario Bill 206: An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, 2005 AMO President Roger Anderson's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government January 26, 2006 Association of NIunJcJpalJtJes 393 University Avenue, Suite 1701 Toronto, ON MSG 1E6 Canada Of Ontario Tel: 416-971-9856 Fax: 416-971-6191 Email: arno@arno.on, ca Website: www. amo. on.ca AMO's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government - Bill 206 INTRODUCTION: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Roger Anderson. I am the Chair of the Regional Municipality of Durham and the President of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). We are pleased to be here today and have the opportunity to make a follow-up submission to the Standing Committee on General Government on the amended Bill 206, An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, 2005. As a representative and advocate of almost all municipal government across the province, with more than 380 municipal members who are OMERS employers, AMO is profoundly concerned about the impact of Bill 206 and the potential for significant costs for municipalities and ultimately to property tax payers. To date, AMO has heard from 200 municipalities across Ontario citing concerns regarding the proposed legislation. AMO maintains that the Province is rushing to reform one of Canada's most important pension funds without a reasonable understanding of the potential repercussions and without sufficient regard to the best interests of employees, retirees, employers, citizens, taxpayers or Ontario's economy. The Government advised the Legislative Assembly, at Second Reading of this proposed legislation, that all of the input received by Standing Committee members was brought forward and taken very seriously. Yet, amendments tabled to date reflect a fundamental disregard for the interests of OMERS employers, municipal governments and property tax payers. Bill 206 is terribly flawed and fundamentally wrong. January 26,2006 2 AMO's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government - Bill 206 If this Bill was once about the devolution of responsibility and autonomy to OMERS employee and employer members, it no longer is. It is now a Bill that is first and foremost about ensuring access to enhanced retirement benefits for a select group of employee members. AMO's preliminary analysis concluded the potential cost impact for municipalities for supplemental plans to be as much as $380 million a year. This is estimated to be the equivalent to a Province-wide property tax increase of 3%. Over 5 years this amounts to $1.9 billion. This is equivalent to the full amount of Federal gas tax being transferred to Ontario municipalities over a 5-year period! While the amended Bill appears to put some limits on benefit changes, and the Government has signalled an intent to remove the solvency requirement for supplemental plans, we have absolutely no doubt there will be new OMERS costs - with not one penny to find its way into any service improvements for the public. If Province has told the Committee that AMO's costing is based on "worst case scenario". If they have any alternative data or actuarial analysis, we call on them to present it now. Bill 206 provisions mandating supplemental plans for police, fire and paramedics will result directly in increased property tax increases, and will undermine our ability to invest in communities, including emergency services. There will be costs. In fact, the amendments introduced subsequent to the last Standing Committee hearings, particularly making the provision of supplemental plans mandatory January 26, 2006 3 AMO's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government - Bill 206 within two years, and the addition of paramedics, would increase AMO's cost estimates dramatically. Supplemental Plans: Needless to say, the logistical challenges of supplemental plans are considerable and complex. All would have to be managed and administered by OMERS on behalf of approximately 900 employer groups, not to mention the anticipated significant increase in actuarial and technology costs. The OMERS Board has speculated that the cost of lawyers and pension experts to advise the Sponsors Corporation in establishing province-wide supplemental plans alone will be $5 - 10 million dollars. These estimates don't even factor in the resources necessary to ensure the successful transition of the plan and support for the Sponsors in educating themselves as they assume their new and very important role. When Bill 206 was introduced, it outlined the potential for a number of supplemental plans to enhance the retirement benefits of OMERS police and fire service employees. Not only did Government amendments to the Bill after First Reading introduce mandatory supplemental plans, but also extended these provisions to paramedics, and clarified that the definition of "police" included civilian police services employees and not just front-line officers. In debates to the Legislative Assembly at Second Reading the Government assured the members opposite that the rationale for providing emergency services workers "special consideration" in this legislation is that such noble careers are characterized by particular physical and mental challenges, necessitating personal and special sacrifices. Yet, those OMERS employees in civilian police services jobs include office administration, information technology services, human resources workers and school crossing guards. January 26, 2006 4 AMO's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government - Bill 206 Our review of retirement plans for local governments, including the U.S., showed that fattened pensions for select public servants have left them with substantial retirement nest eggs that they would not likely have received from private companies and skewed a compensation system that was designed to supplement Iow civil service wages and reward long-time public employees with a secure retirement. AMO is certain that it is only a matter of time before OMERS employees in other areas of employment, outside the emergency services sectors, will seek the same access to enhanced retirement benefits as their colleagues in police, fire and paramedics. The tenets of Bill 206 will effectively change the face of municipal labour relations forever. If you think AMO's last cost estimate for supplemental plans was a "worst-case scenario", trust that you will see these enhanced benefits whipsaw across the entire public sector, including Provincial OPP services. And at what cost to the taxpayers of Ontario? Decision-Making Model: Bill 206 introduces an unusual decision-making model whereby the Sponsors Corporation may make a specified change (e.g., change to benefits or contribution rates) with an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members. If a proposal is neither accepted (by 2/3 majority), nor rejected (by simple majority), the Sponsors Corporation may, by an affirmative vote of a simple majority of its members (i.e., 50% + 1 ), refer the proposal to a mediation and arbitration process. Complicated, isn't it? What the Government must consider as inevitable, is that if an arbitration decision on Plan benefits is rendered at the Sponsors Corporation level, then the January 26, 2006 5 AMO's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government - Bill 206 likelihood of arbitration at the local level will happen with great ease. Current arbitration decisions take decisions elsewhere and replicate them. AMO cannot support such a model. In essence, a decision by an arbitrator could have a significant impact on the municipal tax rate, without any regard for tax increases and the ability to pay, without any regard to the reduction of staffing and services that may be required to accommodate the decision, and without any accountability to the public, taxpayers or employees. It is an appalling means to supposedly protect the public interest of Ontarians. The Bill should indicate simply that decisions for specified changes are subject to the 2/3rd's majority vote - full stop. The proposed decision making model is incomprehensible and unnecessarily complicated, and flies in the face of the stated objective of Sponsor autonomy. As well, the government's amendment to make supplemental plans mandatory negates the rationale for an arbitration component. Costinq: To date, the Government has not provided any information to demonstrate that it has analyzed the potential cost implications of Bill 206 for any employers, including municipalities. OMERS estimates that the cost of implementing certain supplemental benefits could be quadruple the total cost without solvency funding in the first five years, placing additional, and perhaps even insurmountable fiscal pressure on the employers and employees who will fund them. Add to this the current financial performance of the basic plan that necessitates OMERS employees and employers to manage an average 9% increase in their January 26,2006 6 AMO's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government - Bill 206 OMERS contributions. Costs related to Bill 206's mandatory supplemental plans would be in addition to escalating costs for the basic plan. AMO stands by our costing analysis as accurate, as should the Province. When asked to provide their own fiscal analysis, the Province indicated that they are relying on figures supplied by the OMERS Board. AMO has produced fair and reasonable estimates using OMERS data and actuarial information projected across 120 municipalities in Ontario. Although finance minister Dwight Duncan has signalled to OMERS his intent to recommend to Cabinet that supplemental plans be exempted from solvency requirements under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act, nothing in Bill 206 changes these legislated solvency requirements. While we do not question the sincerity of the Minister of Finance or his commitment, his promise provides no guarantee. It would be irresponsible for AMO or anyone else to adjust its current cost estimates under the circumstances. If anything, the original estimates have grown. The $380 million does not account for new costs that were added to the Bill at Second Reading - the extension of mandatory supplemental plans for paramedics, or civilian police services employees; or, the "best three years" plan. Furthermore, even if we factor in a solvency exemption, the costs developed by OMERS actuaries - at AMO's request - projected a 10% increase in OMERS costs for a municipality with 1,000 employees when just one supplemental plan was provided for each of the NRA 60 and NRA 65 employees (see attached Appendix "A"). That's a 10% increase on top of the already escalating cost of the OMERS basic plan with not one penny going toward better services. January 26, 2006 7 AMO's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government - Bill 206 I guess that's what the government would call a "best case scenario" - a 10% hike in OMERS costs without one penny invested in better services. That means increased pension benefits supported by municipal tax payers, including pensioners on a fixed income, for a pension plan that is already one of the most generous in Canada. Yesterday, this Committee heard from the Police Association of Ontario that the costs of supplemental plans would be Iow. So, this Committee has heard from stakeholders with disparate views and very different interests. And still, the Government has refused to provide anyone with any information about the costs of the Bill. The notion that costing done from 2002 consultations has any bearing on Bill 206 is ridiculous. Is it possible that the Government simply doesn't know what the cost impacts of Bill 206 will be? What does this say about this Bill and the work of this Committee? We maintain that taxpayers deserve nothing less than full disclosure of the Government's costing analysis as part of due diligence on this major policy initiative. The Government has commented on the credibility of our costing analysis - it's only fair we should be able to comment on theirs. AMO feels so strongly about this, we felt compelled to make a formal request for this information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - something we were reluctant to do, as our preference would have been that the Government offered this information as many requested during the public hearings. We are still waiting for this information. Janua~ 26,2006 8 AMO's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government - Bill 206 Plan Desian: Increasingly, there is movement in the broader pension community toward "Defined Contribution" pension plan conversions, as the fiscal sustainability of "Defined-Benefit" based plans are being questioned. This includes a new case study from the Toronto-based Rotman International Centre for Pension Management that identified the multiple financial challenges facing many Defined-Benefit plans. AMO congratulates the Government on its removal of section 9 that necessitated all benefit plans be defined as Defined-Benefit plans. If the intent of devolution is to permit the members of the Sponsors Corporation to take more responsibility for the viability of their plan and be responsive to the needs of OMERS stakeholders, flexibility on future plan design may be necessary. Fudhermore, consistent with the Bill's stated objective of Sponsor autonomy, AMO cannot support the section of the draft legislation that confers Government authority to make regulations governing the establishment and terms and conditions of supplemental plans. AMO upholds that disputes over the establishment and terms of conditions of supplemental plans should be settled by an autonomous Sponsors Corporation, without the interference from Government. As well, Sponsors with appointing authority, including AM(D, should have absolute control on who is appointed to represent their constituents on the initial Sponsors Corporation. CONCLUSIONS: AMO believes that the Province is ignoring the best interests of communities, small business groups, seniors and property tax payers in general. The OMERS pension plan is already one of the most generous pension plans in Canada - January 26,2006 9 AMO's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government - Bill 206 taxpayers, particularly pensioners on fixed incomes, should not have to pay higher property taxes to fund even greater benefits for a select few. The OMERS Plan was designed to provide a predictable, stable and portable pension system for employers and employees alike. These key principles are betrayed by this Bill- to the detriment of both municipal government and taxpayers. Bill 206 has been amended to create a very costly and complex pension plan. If Bill 206 passes in its current form, municipalities will need to begin planning for significant cost increases and consequent property tax increases. If the Government proceeds with the Bill, it must provide at least 12 months lead time before the Bill comes into force to allow all parties to prepare for implementation. This Committee will hear from many OMERS stakeholders. Few stakeholders and even fewer plan Sponsors support this Bill. Most Sponsors believe this Bill is a recipe for disaster. Fudhermore, yesterday we learned that CUPE will seek a mandate to strike over provisions in Bill 206 -leading to the potential disruption of vital municipal services in communities all over Ontario. Given that most stakeholders overwhelmingly reject this legislation, the Government must carefully ask itself if it is advisable to proceed with the passage of Bill 206. Coupled with the continued absence of any indication that the government has considered the true implications of the Bill, AMO respectfully suggests to this Committee that it "do the right thing" and recommend defeat of the Bill. January 26, 2006 10 AMO's Presentation to the Standing Committee on General Government - Bill 206 Appendix A: OMI:RS Supplementol Plons Generic Informotion Initial annual dollar contributions by a hypothetical employer with 1,000 employees, subscribing to Supplemental Plans NRA 60 NRA 65 TOTAL Primary Pension Plan $1.64 M $2.4 M $4.04 M Supplemental Plans (with solvency $0.71 M $0.50 M $1.21 M funding) Supplemental Plans (without solvency $0.16 M $0.21 M $0.37 M funding) Total (with solvency) $2.35 M $2.95 M $5.25 M Total (without solvency) $1.80 M $2.61 M $4.41 M Source: OMERS Supplemental Plans Generic Information Stakeholder Meeting, September 23, 2005 January 26, 2006 11 ",~ ~ Assodation of / : ~ Munidpalities of Ontario Alert 39~University Avenue, Suite 1701Toronto, ON MSG 1E6 T~: (416) ~1-~ · f~: (416) 971-6191 ~1: a~a~.~.ca To ~e immediate a~ion of the Clerk and Counc8 Februa~ 2, 2006 - AleA 061004 OMERS - Bill 206 - More Amendments Bill Remains Flawed Issue: · Standing Committee undertaking clause-by-clause review · Update on AMO's FI PPA Request I. Summary of the substantive Government proposals Some observations: · The amendments at First Reading are being amended and others deleted as outlined below. · Composition of the Sponsors Corporation and the Plans Administration Corporation has changed again. · OM ERS made a submission commenting on motions and what's still missing. We do not as yet have a complete list of the motions adopted, but have indicated the Committee's action for those that we do know. There is one significant amendment that was withdrawn (see # 2 below) which if we didn't succeed, would have added more costs to munidpal governments. Highlights of Proposals: 1. Defined Benefit Plan At First Reading dause-by-dause, the government moved the deletion of section as requested by AlVlO, OrVlERs and others. On the following day, the government members sought unanimous consent to reinsert the section but failed to get that consent. Today, an amendment was adopted to insert a section that will require that the primary pension plan be a defined benefit plan. This means that supplemental _./2 -2- plans, at least those that are not already prescribed by the Bill, could in theory be based on a defined contribution formula based on a 2/3-majority vote. This means the primary plan and the prescribed supplemental benefits are now locked-in by the Bill. 2. Prescribed Supplemental Benefits (for police, fire and paramedics) An amendment would require that, at a local level, there be at least 36 months between the date that one prescribed supplemental benefit is made available and the date that any subsequent supplemental benefit is made available (by that same employer). This means that access to the prescribed benefits cannot be accelerated by shortening the terms of collective agreements, a consequence that was generated by an amendment made at First Reading. In relative terms, this is helpful. A government motion to replace Subsection 11(3) was withdrawn as a result of some quick advocacy. If the amendment had passed, it would have resulted in potential new additional costs associated with the prescribed supplemental plans for fire, police and paramedics, as the sections appeared to obligate employers to share in the costs of those benefits on a retroactive basis as well as prospective basis for those members who wish to purchase past service. $. Cap on Employer Contributions Section 12 is to be deleted. This section limited the improvements that could be made to the primary pension plan. The implication of the section was that the primary plan provide benefits based on: · the current best 60 consecutive months of earnings (multiplied by pensionable service) · and an accrual rate of no greater than 2% less an offset of 0.6% of the YMPE (which allows for some level of CPP integration). In other words, with the deletion of Section 12 the primary plan can be amended in the future to improve either the best average earnings formula (i.e., best 36 months) or the accrual rate (i.e., 2% with no offset). This is a significant change and is clearly a concession to CUPE and other employee groups who have been fighting the "cap". -3- 4. Governance Structure The Government has proposed a number of changes that again deal with the governance of OM ERS. a) Sponsors Corporation Section 38(1) is to be amended with the effect that during the transitional period (of one year) the Sponsors Corporation will be comprised of 14 members (compared to the 22 required by the Bill following second reading and compared to the 16 voting members when the Bill was introduced). A new section 39(9) is to be added, which will give multiple (i.e., weighted) votes to AHO and CUPE (Ontario). The bNo AHO members will each have two votes and the one CUPE (Ontario) member will have three votes. Each side (employers and plan members) will have nine votes, for a total of eighteen. A list of the revised Sponsor Corporation membership follows. 14 voting members- Sponsors Corporation * Number in ( ) indicates the composition at Second Reading AHO and CUPE (Ontario) have weighted votes Employer Representatives Plan Member Representatives AMO -2 (5) CUPE (Ontario) - 1 (5) City of Toronto-1 (2) CUPE Local 79 and 416-1 (0) and the appointment rotates School Boards-I (1) and PAO -1 (1) the appointment rotates OAPSB-1 (1) OPFFA-1 (1) Other Employers - 2 (2) and OSSTF- 1 (0) (replaces rotational representation representative to be chosen by continues Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers who were to represent non- union/unaffi liated employees) Other Members -1 (2) Former Members - 1 (1) ·Second I~eoding- 22 voting members -4- b) Administration Corporation Section 33(2) is to be replaced. The replacement section provides for a three- year transitional period (versus the one year period previously in the Bill), during which the composition of the Administration Corporation will be as prescribed by the Bill, notwithstanding any by-laws passed by the Sponsors Corporation. Section 44 is to be replaced. The replacement section alters the composition of the Administration Corporation during the three year transition period follows. Unlike the Sponsors Corporation there is no weighted voting. 14 voting members- Plans Administration Corporation Number in ( ) indicates the composition at Second Reading No weighted votes Employer Representatives Plan Member Representatives AMO- 2 (3) CUPE(Ontario) -2 (3) City of Toronto - 1 (2) PAO-1 (1) School Boards-I (1) AMCTO-1 (1) OAPSB-1 (1) OPFFA-1 (1) Other Employers - 2 ( 2 ) Other Member Groups 1 ( 2 ) Retirees - 1 ( 1 ) The AIVlCTO has representation on the Administration Corporation whereas it does not have representation on the Sponsors Corporation. On the other hand, OSSTF has representation on the Sponsors Corporation but not on the Administration Corporation. Despite the equal size of OSSTF and the non-union (AIVlCTO), there are clear inconsistendes in the initial composition (and voting structure) of the Sponsors Corporation and the Administration Corporation. This, along with fire and police with a seat each, the composition does not accurately reflect a representation by population model. A motion proposes that the Lieutenant Governor in Coundl will make the first appointments to the Administration Corporation. These appointments are not to exceed three years. A new section 33(1.1) is to require a bNo-thirds majority vote of the Sponsors Corporation members in order to pass by-laws that affect the composition of and method for choosing members of the Administration Corporation. _./5 -5- c) Advisory Committees Section 40(3) and 41(3) are to be struck out. The consequence of this change is that the advisory committees will become permanent (i.e., they will not be discontinued upon the establishment of the Sponsor Corporations by-laws). II. AMO's FI PPA Request Update: The Assodation made a FTPPA request December 15, 2005 for information related to the finandal analysis of the Bill and government sponsored amendments. AMO was recently informed that rvlrVlAH is extending the timeframe for response until February 27, 2006. AIVlO is appealing this extension request for the following reasons: · We did not receive an adequate decision letter within the 30 days from the date that our request was received, as required by legislation; · We did not receive notice that there has been an extension of a time limit within 30 days from the date that our request was received, as required by legislation; and, · We do not agree that an extension is necessary, or that an additional 31 day time period is reasonable. Given the legislative stage of the Bill, and that it could be reported to the House as early as February 13, AIVlO has pointed out the extremely time sensitive nature of the request. ArvlO will keep members informed of the results of our appeal. Action: ArvlO wishes to acknowledge the work of municipal governments in their efforts to raise the issue locally with their MPPs and community. These efforts should continue as the Bill will be reported to the House for Third Reading debate. 'i3ming for this is not known as yet but could occur as early as February 13 when the House resumes. AHO would also like to acknowledge those munidpalities that made written submissions as well as appearing at Standing Committee. AHO will continue to message that this Bill is flawed and thatthe government should withdraw it. This information is available in the Policy Issues section of the AMO website at www. amo. on. ca For more information, contact: Pat Vanini, Executive Director, at 416-971-9856 extension 316 .f -flA'A Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association P.O. Box 21047 Stratford, Ontario NSA 7V4 January 25, 2006 Hon. Linda Jeffrey, MPP Chair, Standing Committee on General Government Room 1405 Whitney Block Queen's Park Toronto ON M7A 1A2 BILL 206 AN ACT TO REVISE THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM On behalf of the Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association (OMHRA), we appreciate the opportunity to address the Standing Committee with regard to Bill 206, An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. OMHRA is an association of Human Resource Professionals working in municipalities, regions and other local government organizations throughout Ontario. We have approximately 300 individual members representing 150 municipalities and municipal agencies. OMHRA provides for, and promotes, the exchange of information as well as the sharing of applied knowledge amongst our members. We also take a leadership role in responding to initiatives of government bodies and other organizations that will, or may have, an impact on our members and their respective workplaces. While we support the principle of OMERS autonomy, we hope that the Standing Committee will give serious consideration to our comments and recommendations to enable a smooth transition to the proposed governance model, and to ensure that the OMERS pension plan remains stable, secure and affordable for its members and municipal employers. SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS Exclude Supplemental Plans from Bill 206 Bill 206 should be restricted to dealing only with issues pertaining to governance and autonomy of the OMERS Pension Plan. We do not believe that the provision of enhanced benefits for one relatively small segment of the OMERS population, in the form of supplemental plans, should be enshrined in this Bill. Governance and autonomy of the OMERS pension plan is too important and complex an issue to have it overshadowed by this ancillary focus. Given the cost impact to the taxpayer, the inequity created for other plan members, and the move away from OMERS fundamental promise of fairness for all, we strenuously advocate that the supplemental plans be dropped in their entirety from the Bill. Telephone:(519) 275-3690 Fax:(519) 275-2676 E-mail:admin@ohmra.ca Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association P.O. Box 21047 Stratford, Ontario N5A 7V4 Cost Effects of Supplemental Plans In Minister John Gerretsen's letter of December 20, 2005 to all Heads of Municipal Council, he asserted that Bill 206 would not impose any new cost, or pension benefit, that would result in added costs for municipalities. We beg to differ! The cost to municipal govemments and subsequently their taxpayers, to provide the suggested supplemental plans is exceedingly steep. OMERS already has a significant impact on local property taxes of over $450 million which translates to between 1% and 3% on average municipal budgets, thus the cost of supplementary plans would result in significant additional property tax levies. Analysis undertaken by the Association of Municipalities, using actuarial estimates developed by OMERS, concluded that the potential cost impact for municipalities to be as much as $380 million per year. The amendments to Bill 206 will increase these costs dramatically, including the addition of paramedics to the list of emergency service workers for whom supplementary plans must be available. The amended Bill 206 continues to provide recourse to binding mediation/arbitration to resolve disputes where a two-thirds majority of the Sponsors Corporation has not given support for a proposed benefit change. Section 28 of the Bill gives the Sponsors Corporation the ability to pass a by-law to require employers and members to pay a fee to fund any costs that are not related to pension administration. This would include the costs of mediation and arbitration. Given the size and composition of the Sponsors Corporation, it is conceivable that the need to resort to supplementary decision-making mechanisms could occur frequently. The transfer of these expenses to the employers and members will result in additional expenses over and above the already high pension contributions for the basic plan, and the potential costs of the supplemental plans. How and when these expenses can be passed along should be more fully addressed, and not be left up to the Sponsors Corporation where special assessments can be levied in a sporadic or random fashion. Pension contributions are already a very significant cost to both the members of the plan and the municipal employers, thus the assignment of ad hoc fees to pay for the job of running the pension plan is not acceptable. Because of the huge cost impact to the taxpayer, the immense inequity created for other plan members, and the move away from OMERS fundamental promise of fairness for all, once again we strenuously advocate that the supplemental plans be dropped in their entirety from the Bill. From an administrative standpoint, the logistical challenges of supplemental plans are considerable and complex. All local supplemental plans - and they would be considerable in number when one considers the number of local Collective Agreements between Fire, Police and Paramedic unions - would have to be managed and administered by OMERS on behalf of approximately 900 employer groups, not to mention the anticipated significant increase in actuarial and technology costs. Telephone:(519) 275-3690 Fax:(519) 275-2676 E-mail:admin@ohmra.ca Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association P.O. Box 21047 Stratford, Ontario N5A 7V4 The Impact of Local Barflaining for Supplemental Pension Plan Benefits We fundamentally disagree with local bargaining for pension improvements and the likelihood of a settlement through interest arbitration. Municipal employers already face escalating labour costs in the emergency services sector. The reality of pattern bargaining for Police, Firefighters and more recently Emergency Medical Services makes the opportunity to bargain at the local level for supplemental pension benefits unrealistic. As we have seen frequently in the past, when one Police or Fire service is successful in bargaining a specific enhancement to their Collective Agreement, other services are awarded the same benefit at Arbitration. A case in point is retention pay, pay for long service ranging from 3% to 9% Toronto Police was awarded retention pay, then Toronto Fire was awarded the same benefit, and from there it became entrenched in other areas of the Province through arbitration. Almost 90% of the Police in Ontario have the benefit, many due to the arbitration process, despite the fact that in many instances retention is not considered to be a local issue. This example illustrates the domino effect of pattern bargaining. There is little doubt that the proposed supplemental plans will follow the same course and be awarded by arbitrators, simply because they have been achieved in other jurisdictions, with little regard given to cost and local conditions. Another significant impact on local bargaining will be the situation where some members of a Bargaining Unit, e.g. Emergency Medical Personnel in CUPE, will be eligible for supplemental plans while the remainder of the Bargaining Unit would not. OMERS has always enshrined the fundamental premise of fairness for all of its members; however, the proposed requirement in Bill 206 that supplemental plans be established to provide police, fire and paramedics with the opportunity to negotiate the enhanced benefits will create inequity not only within the pension plans, but within local Bargaining Units as well. Cost Effects on Municipal Employers and their Employees Currently, employers and members of the plan pay almost 10% of their wages to the basic plan. We are already managing a 9% average increase in basic plan contributions introduced in 2006 and there is no doubt that there will be additional rate increases in future years if current solvency rules under the Pension Benefits Act continue to apply. In addition to employer fiscal restraints, we must consider how much the average municipal worker can afford. On a typical wage of $40,000.00 per annum, will workers be able to afford to contribute15% of their wages to basic and supplemental plans? Not only that, some members will contribute to a supplemental plan only to find that the value of their pension has not been enhanced. Transition Costs Significant costs will result when the Province ends it sponsorship of the OMERS plan. When the Province devolved The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and the OPSEU Pension Trust, it committed resources to ensure the successful transition of these plans. It is prudent and just that the Province provide similar financial support for OMERS devolution to Telephone:(519) 275-3690 Fax:(519) 275-2676 E-mail:admin@ohmra.ca Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association P.O. Box 21047 Stratford, Ontario N5A 7V4 ensure adequate funding to enable stakeholders to prepare for devolution and its encompassing responsibilities. Solvency Funding It is not sufficient for Minister Gerretsen to state that the proposed supplemental plans will be exempt from the current solvency criteria. Provincial legislators are currently amending the Pension Benefits Act of Ontario. It is vital that OMERS (and other public service pension funds) be excluded from the stringent solvency funding rules not only for supplemental plans but for the fund entirely. The safeguards created by the solvency funding rules are not appropriate for public pension plans since the possibility of bankruptcy or wind-up is virtually non-existent. Technical Aspects We fully support any submission made by OMERS and their recommendations for technical changes or amendments to Bill 206, and strongly urge the Minister to ensure that the recommendations of the experts be included in the new legislation. It is imperative that there be no ambiguity within the new Act and Regulation and that the terms and conditions be explicit in their meaning. Following proclamation of the new legislation, we trust that the Sponsors Committee will be given the authority to amend the plan text as necessary. Once again we thank you for this opportunity to address these hearings and respectfully urge you to consider our recommendations and re-draft this most important piece of legislation before proceeding further. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Paterson, Christine A. Ball, Chair, Pension and Benefits Committee Past President, OMHRA Board of Directors Roy Male, President (City of Burlington) John Fleck, Vice President (Town of Ajax) Christine Ball, Past President (Regional Municipality of Durham) Grant McLevy, Board Member (County of Grey) Peggy Melior, Board Member (Regional Municipality of Waterloo) Ken Todd, Board Member (City of St. Catharine's) Kandy Webb, Board Member (County of Norfolk) Telephone:(519) 275-3690 Fax:(519) 275-2676 E-mail:admin@ohmra.ca 305 Milner Ave, Suite 801 Scarborough, ON MIB 3V4 Phone: 416-299-9739 · Fax: 416-299-3480 Web: cupe.omca E-mail: cupeont~web.net OMERS BILL 206 AND WHAT CUPE WANTS CHANGED The Sweetheart Deal - Police and Firefighters receive supplemental benefits and there is no guarantee you won't pay for them. CUPE members are being discriminated against. The Rules Changed - Second Reading changes include last minute amendments that shackle CUPE. OMERS Is An Unmanageable Accountability Disaster - The Bill cripples OMERS ability to manage its $40 billion assets, and no director or Board will be responsible. · The Sweetheart Deal CUPE has long wanted OMERS to have autonomy from Government, and McGuinty agreed. So, during 2005, Bill 206 was drafted to make OMERS autonomous. But in doing so, the Government has made sweetheart deals that do not include you. The deal with Police and Fire gives them vastly superior pensions, while the rest of us get inferior pensions. As it now stands, Bill 206 discriminates against women and other lower paid members of OMERS, and there are no guarantees that our members aren't going to pay for the better pensions Police and Fire will receive. Police and firefighters make up only 20 per cent of OMERS members. Sally, a CUPE member in OMERS, will retire at 65 after working for 30 years. With the current OMERS accrual rate of 1.325 per cent, multiplied by the five best years of her wages (at $30,000 a year) she receives a pension of$11,925 a year. The best that Bill 206 allows is an accrual rate of 1.4 per cent. Many other public pensions have a rate of 2 per cent.' At 2 per cent, the rate permitted by the Income Tax Act, Sally would receive $18,000 a year. For many pensioners like Sally, it's a $6.000 difference between living in poverty and having some comfort in her later years. ~nd Sally may end up subsidizing the higher pensions of Police and Firefighters! Continued over... · The Rules Changed At Second Reading, McGuinty changed the rules and Bill 206 now requires a two-thirds vote for Plan improvements. This will lock in the Police and Fire deals forever and shackle CUPE's efforts to get improvements. Also at Second Reading, McGuinty changed the rules on resolving differences among Sponsors. The new mediation/arbitration amendment will make it much harder for CUPE to find a way to improve your Pension or, if necessary, to go to court to protect your Pension. Again at Second Reading, McGuinty gave municipal managers a scat on the Employee side of the Board! Up until now this group sat - as they should - on the Employers' side of thc Board. So Employee groups do not have $0% of the Board positions! CUPE demands that both Boards have representation by population. CUPE with 45 per cent of the members should have representation equalling our membership in thc plan. · OMERS Is An Unmanageable Accountability Disaster BILL 206 contains a multitude of changes that will cripple OMERS' ability to manage its $40 billion in pension assets. No oversight - With forty directors split between two boards, no individual director or board can ever be held accountable. No decision-making ability - The unprecedented two-thirds majority-voting requirement for the Sponsors Corporation board will make it impossible to make decisions about member benefits and contributions. There is little accountability at OMERS now. Bill 206 will make it even worse. We all know what happened at Borealis. OMERS outsourced investments to a private corporation known as Borealis. This led to the squandering of millions of dollars of pensioners' money, which went in management fees to the officers of this corporation. In order to remedy this debacle, OMERS had to spend further millions to bring these investments back in house. As a result of this fiasco, OMERS is under investigation by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), the body that oversees pensions in this province, and CUPE is suing. With Bill 206 we can expect more financial disasters like this! cope 343 sh\OMERSXBil1206-changes Corporate Services Department F-2006-08 The City of ~l~&~ Finance Kenneth E. Burden Niagara Falls~I1~ 4310p.0. BoxQUeen1023Street Director Canad__,~_,~~ Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 .~ll~/r web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-0759 E-maih kburden@city.niagarafalls.on.ca. February 6, 2006 His Worship Mayor Ted Salci and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: F-2006-08 - 2006 Interim Tax Levy RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the following: i) the 2006 Interim Tax Levy calculation; and ii) the passing of a by-law providing for a 2006 Interim Tax Levy BACKGROUND: The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls requires an interim tax levy. This requirement is necessary because of two factors. Firstly, the Corporation requires operating funds so as to meet its financial obligations. In addition to the requirement for its own operating needs, the Corporation must also meet its statutory obligations for collecting taxes on behalf of the Region of Niagara and the local school boards. The statutory requirement of the City is to provide quarterly payments to both the Region of Niagara and the local school boards. Both of these factors necessitate the interim tax levy. Failure to provide an interim tax levy will lead to increased borrowing by the Corporation and will result in increased interest expenses. An interim tax levy is required to ensure the provision of the required funds to minimize borrowing costs. The authority to collect this interim tax levy is prescribed in section 317 of the Municipal Act. The interim tax levy is subject to the following rules: 1. The amount levied on a property shall not exceed the prescribed percentage, or 50 percent if no percentage is prescribed, of the total amount of taxes for municipal and school purposes levied on the property for the previous year. Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks · Finance · Human Resoumes · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development February 6, 2006 - 2 - F-2006- 2. The percentage used in the levy may be different for different classes but must be the same for all properties in a property class. 3. Allows the municipality to use an entire years taxes for a property in the calculation of the interim tax levy in the situation that a full year was not charged in the previous year. Staff has developed the interim tax levy based on these rules and has determined that the amount due for the interim levy for each property will be 50% of the annualized assessment used in determining the 2005 City tax levy. The due dates for this interim tax levy are in accordance with the new Municipal Act. The interim bill will be due on two dates. As per the regulations outlined in the new Municipal Act, property owners must be provided 21 days notice before payment. The due dates are consistent with the regulation and will be February 28, 2006 and April 28, 2006. In 2005, these dates were February 28, 2005 and April 20, 2005. An interim levying by-law is required to establish the amount of the interim levy. This has been prepared and appears on this evening's Council Agenda for passage. Prepared by: Respectfully submitted: Manager of Finance Chief Administrative Officer Director of Finance A~by: T. Raven~~a~ Executive Director of Corporate Services r~