Guelph and Wellington County officials were still pondering the ruling of arbitrator Douglas Colbourne late last week.
Guelph Mayor Karen Farbridge contacted the Advertiser just minutes after last week’s issue went to press.
She said the city sought arbitration because Guelph councillors sitting on the joint county and city social services committee had so much difficulty understanding how the spending was being done. She said she wanted to be able to explain those expenditures to Guelph citizens.
When asked how she could sit on that committee for so long and be unable to get answers, Farbridge said the complexities came about when the provincial government downloaded a number of services onto municipalities at the turn of the century.
Farbridge said, “The tension and the conflict between the city and the county goes back a number of years. It comes from downloading.”
When informed the county and city had worked well together for nearly 40 years, she said, “It worked at the time. No one asked if this was the right governance structure when the downloading started. The relationship has not been good for some time.”
Farbridge noted with four members apiece on the committee, the vote was often tied 4-4, and then county council approved proposals that were opposed by all the city representatives.
She said the city would then receive a bill: “one sheet; a few lines” and be expected to pay it.
Farbridge was asked if sitting down with county politicians and city and county staff could lead to a resolution. She replied, “I’ve had lots of meetings with the warden and county staff.”
She said the city’s new social services committee, which Guelph council formally created on Jan. 25, will have to deal with the fallout from the arbitrator’s decision. She said that will cost the city about $2-million.
Said Colbourne in his decision, “With respect to land ambulance, call location statistics are available … to enable apportionment to be made on the basis of the appropriate codes … As to the cost per call, the county proposal of the average cost per call is an adequate measure until, if desired, the parties, can determine costs per call within each municipality.”
Of general social service costs he wrote, “The statistics provided by the county with respect to residence and or prior residence of claimants, appears to be complete and adequate for purposes of apportionment of costs. The migration suggested by the city of county residents for social service purposes does not exist. Spillovers both ways are minimal and are balanced.”
That statement backed up county Warden Joanne Ross-Zuj’s assessment of the city’s charges. She stated several times that the idea of county residents traveling to the city for social services was something that happened in the 18th century, but today citizens expect social services in their own communities.
Colbourne also stated, “These municipalities are as interconnected with surrounding municipalities as they are with each other economically, socially, culturally and for employment purposes. The connections and draw between them raised in the city’s evidence is not supported by the evidence. The benefits of apportionment based on weighted assessment are not apparent here.”
He ruled that for the four year period commencing Jan. 1, and ending Dec. 31, 2013, that:
– the method for apportioning Ontario Works is based on the residence of the recipient;
– the method for apportioning Ontario Disability Support Program is based on residence of recipient;
– the method for apportioning for child care is based on the residence of recipient for fee subsidy and special needs resourcing, and based on location of the centre for wage subsidy;
– the method for apportioning Social Service Housing will be based on the prior residence of the tenant.
He also directed that the parties are directed to prepare the Cost Sharing agreement to incorporate this award. If the parties are unable to agree, either party may request the assistance of the arbitrator.
County olive branch
At council council on July 28, councillors were obviously pleased with the results of the hearing.
Social services committee chairman Gord Tosh said it is “unfortunate the city wants to leave us” because “We provide services to both.”
He said talks between the two committees now are “optional” but he said he agreed with the city that there are some difficult things to understand with social services.
In particular, he said, there are some funded programs that “may not or should not be there.”
Tosh explained that the federal and provincial governments often forced programs on the county for social services, paid for them, and then, years later, dropped them entirely. He said many of those were “orphaned” with the county, which picked them up and funding them.
Tosh said there was no reason for some of those discretionary programs to remain, and “We never had a discussion with the city.”
He indicated he is willing to talk about those.
As for social services programs, Tosh said the county still holds the mandate to deliver social services, and it will continue to do that.
“People don’t need to worry,” he said.
In the meantime, council gave Ross-Zuj the authority for select another councillor to add to the county’s social services committee.
Councillor Lou Maieron wondered what will happen to the ambulance services.
Ross-Zuj said it is still run by Guelph and the city and county will “sort it out.”
Colbourne’s report showed the effect of his ruling.
Using the 2009 budget costs the city’s proposal would shift $4,396,548 of the city’s costs to the county, while the County’s proposal for land ambulance would shift $1,995,518 of its costs to the city. Using 2008 actuals, the shift in the city’s proposal to the county would be $3,885,388, while $1,874,782 would shift to the city in the county’s proposal.
Farbridge said she believes her new social services committee will have to wrestle with the shortfall for the city.
In the county’s proposal there would be a total shift of $1,995,518 (using 2009 budget figures) an increase of 7.7% for the City and a reduction of 21.17% of total costs for the County, from the current apportionment basis.
Colbourne gave several reasons for his decision in favour of the county:
– The city has many more lone parent and one person households and they comprise the vast majority of Ontario Works (OW) caseload. As well the majority of households receiving child care subsidies are lone parent households.
– The city has the greater population in the 20 to 44 age cohort and this age group comprises the largest percentage of OW caseload as well as being 97% of families in receipt of child care subsidies.
– By far more newcomers to the city and county locate in the urban setting and they fall predominantly is the 20 to 44 age cohort.
– The city has a somewhat larger percentage of population below the low income cut-off.
– In the county those self employed (double the city’s component) and those in the significant farming component have great difficulty in qualifying for social services.
– There is a greater inclination for residents to access social services in an urban setting as opposed to the rural setting.
– The city centres have a higher licenced capacity, and there is a much higher percentage of day care positions supported by wage subsidies.
– Due to the higher licenced capacity and higher incidence of low-income cut-off parents, the demand for special needs resourcing is concentrated in the city.
– Student families in the large university population in the city account for 25% of the number of families receiving child care subsidies.
– The concentration of social housing units in the city, while being a legacy was reflective of demand, client group requirements and developer proposals at the time they were built.
– There is one homeless shelter in the county and four in the city. A partial review of the city’s shelter population showed that four of 137 clients were from the county.
