Duane Hicks
The 2011 budget approved by the Rainy River District Social Services Administration Board last week will see Fort Frances paying $115,000 more to the DSSAB than it did last year, and mayor and council still are asking where its savings from provincially-uploaded programs have gone.
As previously reported, the Town of Fort Frances feels it and other district municipalities have not been getting the full benefit of the uploading—and has not been getting answers.
At Monday’s budget meeting, Coun. Ken Perry, who is the town’s rep on the DSSAB board, said the board budget past last Thursday sees the town’s payment to DSSAB increase from $1,844,127 last year to $1,959,063 this year.
The town’s issue lies with the fact that, according to information in the 2011 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) allocation notice Fort Frances received, the town feels it should be realizing $420,400 in savings from uploaded programs this year.
But DSSAB has said the figure to which the town refers is indicated in its 2011 allocation notice, but that figure indicates Fort Frances’ total accumulated uploaded savings stemming back to 2008, not its share for 2011 only.
“We’ve been informed by the provincial government there’s a substantial amount of money in savings related to uploading, and I am just wondering how we get from that number [$420,300] to an increase of $115,000 this year?” remarked Fort Frances CAO Mark McCaig.
Coun. Perry said that since uploading started in 2008, every municipality should have got their uploaded dollars back—and that DSSAB should set its own budget independent of that and come back and tell the municipalities what is owed by each.
“It appears as though Ken has done everything he possibly could to straighten this out recently,” noted Coun. Rick Wiedenhoeft.
“From our perspective, it still seems to be Fort Frances is getting hurt by this, so my question is where do we go if we’re not getting any satisfaction locally from the DSSAB board?” he asked.
“What can we do?”
Fort Frances treasurer Laurie Witherspoon said she is waiting for answers from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which, in turn, is waiting for answers from the Ministry of Finance regarding the interpretation of the OMPF allocation notice and the uploaded savings.
The Ministry of Community and Social Services is unwilling to give an opinion and waiting for the Ministry of Finance to answer the questions for them, Witherspoon added.
Coun. Andrew Hallikas suggested the town contact local MPP Howard Hampton to look into it or even raise the matter during Question Period at Queen’s Park, as well as contact the Liberal cabinet and write the premier’s office.
“I think this is an issue that needs attention,” Coun. Hallikas stressed. “We’ve been, I think, treated unfairly over the last couple years, and kudos to Ken for trying to get this sorted out.
“But there seems to be no willingness to listen to what I think is logic and reason,” said Coun. Hallikas, who added surely the issue isn’t confined to Rainy River District.
Mayor Roy Avis said town reps brought the issue forward at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference last year, and they’ve not heard back about it.
They’ve also raised the issue with Northern Development, Mines and Forestry minister Michael Gravelle.
The mayor added it’s possible the town is wrong and is assuming something it’s not going to get, “but tell us one way or the other,” he said.
“I would be happy for someone to come to me and tell me that I’m wrong. I’d sleep a lot better at night,” remarked Coun. Ken Perry, adding more than anything, he just wants a definite answer.
“It’s a basic question . . . it should be a quick answer,” agreed McCaig. “I don’t see it taking this long.
“I am very suspicious about why it’s been passed by one ministry over to the Ministry of Finance, and now they’re taking so long,” he added.
“As far as I am concerned, for somebody in the know who produces the OMPF funding sheets, that should be a 10-minute answer, an e-mail back.”
Council agreed to contact Hampton to look into the matter further.
Meanwhile, Fort Frances council also is taking exception to the way votes are calculated at the DSSAB table.
Prior to last week’s budget vote, the town was notified by the province that its number of votes was reduced from three to two—due to a decrease in the number of electors (eligible voters) from 6,000 to 5,521 as of the October, 2010 municipal election.
“So basically, then, the unorganized territories . . . can outvote Fort Frances?” Mayor Roy Avis asked rhetorically.
Clerk Glenn Treftlin said he doesn’t understand why DSSAB representation isn’t determined the same as with school boards.
For example, an elector who owns property in more than one area, say Fort Frances and Emo, only can vote for one trustee to be elected to a school board.
But with the DSSAB board, an elector in Fort Frances who also owns property in an unorganized area is counted as an electorate in both and thus is represented twice, affecting how much weight each municipality/territory carries at the table.
“It’s beyond me as to how they can justify that,” noted Treftlin. “Across the Rainy River District, there’s only so many electors.
“You have electors in Fort Frances, represented by town council, but then you have the same electors that have property in the unincorporated areas, and they are also counted as being represented by that individual.
“I don’t know how you can have that, I think that should be questioned,” he stressed.
“Are you saying, then, that because people hold property in different jurisdictions, they could, in effect, be counted two or three times in this area?” asked McCaig.
“That’s the way it’s being done, yes,” replied Treftlin.
“Well, that’s not legitimate in any kind of voting scenario,” remarked McCaig. “Does somebody who holds a lot of property in the United States, Donald Trump, get 15 votes for president?
“It flies in the face of logic.”
McCaig said a brief on this same issue was presented to the Ministry of Community and Social Services last year, but “it kind of died on the vine.”
“I don’t know how you push it even further,” he admitted.
“I guess we re-introduce it and say, ‘We didn’t really get an answer. We’re not happy,’” McCaig suggested.
