A contentious issue in the Northeast region continues to divide community leaders.

It all stems from a proposal by Timmins Mayor Steve Black, who wants to see changes to the funding model with the Cochrane District Social Services Administration Board—or Cochrane DSSAB.

Black recently went to his own council to announce Timmins is renewing their payments to the board.

At that same meeting in February, Black also proposed a model that would save Timmins over $1.14-million and save the majority of communities in the region some dollars too.

(CLICK HERE to see coverage of that meeting.)

However, based on the model that uses a weighted assessment THAT CAN BE SEEN HERE, three communities would be forced to pay more: Cochrane, Hearst and Kapuskasing.

Kapuskasing, in fact, would have to pay over $1.81-million more than the model currently in place.

Cochrane would have to fork out just over $336,000 more.  The town’s Mayor Peter Politis says the province needs to make a decision on this.

Politis has released a number of statements on the issue, which can be seen below.

While respecting the needs of everyone, our community has been consistently suggesting that the DSSAB take a united approach to addressing the issue with the province itself, who has the ultimate responsibility for social services and seek an opportunity to have the funding of this re-evaluated there, as opposed to on the backs of our communities.  We have suggested before each vote on each resolution proposed by the City of Timmins to step back, think our way through the issue together and find a way to work together on a better outcome, than what the resolutions creating winners and losers amongst ourselves were offering.  On each occasion, this thinking did not prevail.  While completely respecting one’s right to their own direction, I’m left a little perplexed at the messaging afterwards suggesting that no one is offering Timmins anything else to consider.  It seems to suggest Timmins has reached out with a need and no one is responding.  Respectfully, this is not a fair or accurate characterization of the issue.

The City of Timmins passed resolution 17-053 at their February 6, 2017 Council meeting suggesting they would either make a new proposal or support mediation to seek a mutual resolution.  However, at the following February 21, 2017 DSSAB meeting, we discussed the merits of mediation and spoke to Timmins about reserving their latest proposal that would again lead to winners and losers amongst ourselves, and support going to the mediation they referenced, that the province said they would completely pay for. It was politely suggested there was nothing to lose and everything to gain. The response was there is no use for mediation, there would still be a majority vote needed.  Considering the council resolution and all that is at stake, this caught some by surprise.

Consider for a moment that the whole premise of mediation is to take two sides that are at impasse and get them talking toward mutual solution.  To suggest mediation is futile because we aren’t agreeing is curious to say the least.  To further suggest mediation is futile because after it you still need double majority vote is even more curious.  Respectfully, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the premise of going to mediation would be to develop a mutually agreeable solution?  While it’s true that after mediation there is still a need for a double majority vote, the fact is you would be going into it on mutual grounds, which is an important difference to the current approach.

This begs the polite question, if Timmins was in fact looking for other alternatives as the messaging and the resolution itself suggests, clearly a mediated direction would have provided that opportunity.  So why did it get defeated?

For added perspective, in the latest “proposal” from our friends in Timmins, it requires Cochrane, Kap and Hearst to pay an additional $363,000, $1.2 million and $438,000 respectively, in order that other municipalities will pay less, to secure the vote needed for Timmins to be the biggest benefactor with $1.1 million in savings (less than 1% of the City’s budget).  The equivalent impact on the City of Timmins budget if the roles were reversed would be like those towns asking Timmins for $3.6 million, $9 million and $4.4 million dollars respectively.

Politely, what does this say to the people of Cochrane, whose economy leaks over $11 million a year into the Timmins economy, about the true value of our relationship?  What does it say when one feels it’s not only appropriate to make such a crippling demand on their regional family members, but to do so while dividing an entire region to achieve less than a 1% benefit in return?  How should we feel about the message that it’s better to cause all of this havoc and risk, then it is to offer a little of your time to your own family members trying to find a better solution together?

——————–

During the last term of office, our region was able to grow past the self-inflicted divisions of the past to come together and speak with one voice, one common voice.  As a result, we were able to achieve some monumental accomplishments together.  As a region, which Timmins is a big part of, we brought positive change to policing costs; the return of the Spring Bear Hunt; protected the forest economy from activist driven endangered species policy; and stopped the divestment of the Ontario Northland Rail Service, to name a few.  There was a lot to be proud of in that four-year span.  Nothing more than the pride that comes with realizing we don’t have to accept the external threats being imposed upon us, or the notion that we somehow need to accept less than Ontarians to the south or anyone else for that matter.  That the level of our capability as a region lies in our ability to put aside desperate individual needs, and replace that with the strength and hope that follows coming together and working as a collective.

The hope this term would have been to continue this generational growth and continue establishing our region as a bigger part of a better Ontario at large.  Unfortunately, the Cochrane District Social Services Administration Board (DSSAB) issue of cost payment has put all this at risk.  While appreciating the City of Timmins concerns with costs they pay for social services, it seems as though the bigger concept (and value) of regional unity has been lost in the discussion, to the temptations of the past driven by the pressure around individual needs.  As an outlying regional community to the City of Timmins, we deeply value the interests of fellow northerners across the region, including our friends in Timmins.  It’s why our community, along with others across the region, have worked hard to resist the temptation of reacting to the arguments Timmins has been proposing that suggest they somehow pay more than their fare share of social services costs then the rest of us do.  Unfortunately, with the latest proposal that seems to explicitly sacrifice regional unity for the outcome being sought, and which has quickly become one of the larger threats we as a region face today, regrettably there is no avoiding the need to now constructively speak out.

The premise of the argument that Timmins has been making suggests Timmins pays more than its fair share than the rest of us, because we can’t afford to pay more.  Politely, this is not only a little misplaced, it can be misleading.  We all have the same formula for determining how we pay for DSSAB services, that’s based on assessment taxation.  We all pay our fair share, including Timmins, for social services, under the exact same formula.  There simply is no different form of payment for Timmins creating the perceived unfairness.

Since starting this direction, our friends in Timmins have taken an approach of bringing “proposals” to the DSSAB board in the form of take it or leave it resolutions.  Each based on number engineering that creates winners and losers amongst us, in an effort to secure majority vote in the region, that will ultimately lead to the savings the Timmins members are seeking.  The problem is that this direction is premised on finding the savings on the backs of our own regional family members, instead of coming together as we would have last term, to figure out where the issues are and approaching the province with a united, rational and intelligent direction of supporting those costs.  Social services is largely a provincial responsibility that municipalities pay for.

Unfortunately, the challenge has been reduced to hankering about biased arguments around complex numbers.  When the focus should be squarely on the bigger picture of loyalty to the regional family (of which Timmins is an extremely important member of), and the value of the plethora of savings we all realize through those relationships like policing, health care, and recreation to name a few.  Curiously, the approach seems to be flaming the fires of regional discontent, jeopardizing these regional savings and a $55 million regional economy that the City of Timmins realizes from regional shoppers, to try and realize $1.1 million in direct savings from the DSSAB (less than 1% of the City’s budget).  Aside from how much that says to us in the region about how little we seem to be valued in this, it’s a cost / benefit question that deserves serious consideration.

As a region, we have risen to battle through some of the biggest threats imposed upon us.  However, this time the threat isn’t an external one as we’re used too, it’s an internal one, from within our own regional family.   Overcoming this without igniting the historical fires of regional discontent that will only hurt us all, clearly will be our biggest test yet.

——————–

While appreciating the intention of the City of Timmins in their pursuit of finding a savings with their share of the DSSAB costs, can I politely suggest that at the very least the approach is what needs careful examination?  With respect, the latest “proposal” we received from Timmins is a lot less about what’s fair, and a lot more about manipulating numbers to achieve a desired outcome.  The formula created in the proposal uses arbitrary factors that are applied to the lowest population communities, providing them a reduced cost to the same services they receive today.  Then this bonus is further reduced by using assessment taxation to pay for it, on the backs of Cochrane, Kap and Hearst – resulting in a double bonus for select communities.  While Timmins has been suggesting they pay the largest share of the double bonus, the fact is they don’t pay anything additional at all, they actually receive the largest benefit in the amount of a $1.1 million savings.  In the end, these factors, along with the size of community to benefit from them, have been messaged to position enough winners to vote for the Timmins proposal, while sacrificing others to do so.  When we asked the folks from Timmins if there was any science, assessment, or analysis that went behind the factors and selection of winning communities, the response was, “none”, that in fact they were arbitrarily selected.

Not only does the model take the unusual step of devaluing the relationships in the region by creating winners and losers, it does so with a formula designed to divide and position a favourable vote for our friends in Timmins.  Consider for a moment that Cochrane’s share of the DSSAB costs has gone up over 75% since the DSSAB started in 1999.  That’s almost four times the proportional increase of the City of Timmins.  In fact, no other municipality in the entire region and DSSAB has had their share of the costs go up more than Cochrane’s.  Consider as well, that even though our costs have gone up more than anyone else, that Cochrane only has 12 hour ambulance service, which is the least of any municipality its size.

Through all the smoke and noise, there are some polite but responsible questions to ask regarding the suggested fairness and functionality of the model being proposed by our friends in Timmins.   How should the people of Cochrane reasonably react to already paying proportionally more than any other DSSAB member, and having less ambulance service then any other member its size, while being forced to pay an additional 35% more, so others can pay less?  How can we as a region realistically come together in the future to drive the growth and evolution of our regional needs, if our relationships have been soured by some taking advantage of the short term opportunity, to be gained through (what can only be characterized as) blood money, forced from their own regional family members?  How should we feel about how little our relationships have to be valued, and how little appreciation there would seem to be for the over $55 million leaking out of regional economies, knowing all of this sacrifice is being traded off to roll the dice on gaining less than 1% (0.8%) relief on the City’s budget?

More poignant, is to realize that as Northerners the amount we succeed in growing our region and the rare way of life that comes with it, directly depends on our ability to trust one another while leading ourselves forward.  Surely, there can be no more important leader in this then the largest center in the region, Timmins!

Filed under: Local News