The argument between the City of Guelph and Wellington County over social services is beginning to show all the dynamics of a school yard recess dispute.
The two municipalities are supposed to jointly operate social services for both municipalities, with the county charged by law with the delivery of those services.
The city left the joint committee earlier this year, but it was unable to take the ball home when it left the playground – because the county owns the ball.
The two have been sending letters back and forth ever since – with little results towards solving their disputes.
On May 27, county council considered a letter from Guelph councillor Maggie Laidlaw, who is the chairman of the city’s social services and housing committee. That committee could not ask social services staff directly for answers to its questions because county staff do not attend the city’s committee meetings.
Warden Joanne Ross-Zuj has said they have enough to do without attending two committee meetings on the same subjects
That letter stated that in February, the city had asked the county deputy-clerk for information about:
– the schedule for the one-time funding and ongoing investment for the Best Start Operating Reserve and Best Start Capital Reserve;
– the status and business case for the new child care centres and administration centres for child care services proposed in 2012;
– proposed increases in municipal costs to cover expenses for the Citizenship and Immigration Canada contract and the one time enhanced employment services programs which will not be renewed in 2011;
– the list of various locations referred to in a county report on social housing from January; and
– a breakdown of the 2008 social housing capital repair fund and re-allocation of $1.29-million.
Laidlaw noted in her letter that Ross-Zuj had stated the county staff would assemble the information and forward it, but that was not yet done.
Laidlaw added that in a letter dated March 23, the city committee also sought more information:
– a five year strategic child services plan that provides the options for anticipated consequences of reductions in provincial and federal subsidies and that options also be provided for the city’s future consideration of support for discretionary program and service enhancements; and
– the county review accuracy and provide any additional information and comments along with detailed statistical information, to supplement the city’s child care backgrounder with additional data requirements to be detailed by city staff.
Laidlaw concluded the April 28 letter by stating, “To date, the city has not received either a response to its letter of March 23, or any of the above requested information.”
She added that at its most recent meeting of April 19, the city’s social services committee requested more information, such as the Guelph Non-Profit Housing Corporation, in conjunction with the county, develop a financial strategy to mitigate future operating costs deficits prior to 2011 for the Paisley Road project, and the county provide a break-down of the city and county allocation of federal funding for the renewable energy initiative under a social housing renovation and repair program.
Laidlaw concluded by stating the city committee is becoming concerned at the amount of time required to get answers to its questions.
When council considered its own social services committee minutes and those letters, committee chairman Gore Toss said the explanation for the delay was simple: the county did not have all the facts available immediately, but those had now been compiled and sent.
He also noted there is a really easy way for the city to get information it wants.
“If they want it, they should be at the meeting when we get it,” he said.
Guelph formed its own social services committee after failing to obtain from the province the right to split off from the county.
