Report to/Rapport au :

Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique

Transit Committee

Comité du transport en commun

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee

Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales

and Council / et au Conseil

26 September 2006 / le 26 septembre 2006

Submitted by/Soumis par:  Rural Issues Advisory Committee

Comité consultatif sur les questions rurales

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Diane Blais, Coordinator / Coordonnatrice,

Rural Issues Advisory Committee / Comité consultatif sur les questions rurales

(613) 580-2424 Ext / poste, 28091 / Diane.Blais@ottawa.ca

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Rural Issues Advisory Committee recommend that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, the Transit Committee and the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee recommend Council approve, in time for the 2007 taxes, changes to the boundaries for the Rural Transit Tax Area “A” so that it only include areas within the village boundaries, as shown on Ottawa’s Official Plan, for those villages receiving transit services.

RECOMMENDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité consultatif sur les questions rurales recommande au Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique, au Comité du transport en commun et au Comité de l’agriculture et des questions rurales de recommander au Conseil d’approuver, à temps pour les taxes de 2007, des modifications aux limites de la zone de taxe de transport rural « A » afin que cette dernière ne comprenne que les secteurs situés dans les limites des villages qui bénéficient d’un service de transport en commun, tel qu’il est indiqué dans le Plan officiel d’Ottawa.

BACKGROUND

In 2002, the City of Ottawa began providing transit services in its rural areas and charging a Rural Transit levy to its rural residents.  To that end, a by-law was enacted to define the Rural Transit Area, with its two zones.  Rural Transit Area “A” includes both regular rural transit and para-transpo whereas Rural Transit Area “B” includes only para-transpo. 

This was identified during the City of Ottawa’s 2005 Rural Summit and the matter was brought to the attention of the Rural Issues Advisory Committee at the request of that Committee’s Chair.

Discussion

At its 19 September 2006 meeting, the Rural Issues Advisory Committee (RIAC) received background information from the Rural Affairs Office with respect to the history of the Rural Transit Levy and a one-page submission from the Chair of RIAC outlining why he felt this levy was wrong. 

Committee members discussed this matter and approved the following resolution:

WHEREAS a transit tax is not a normal cost of doing business in rural Ontario;

AND WHEREAS rural transit tax area “A” was imposed on Ottawa farmers without meaningful consultation;

AND WHEREAS the rural transit service is directed at serving the villages, not the rural concessions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Issues Advisory Committee request that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee take the necessary steps, in time for the 2007 taxes, to change the boundaries of Rural Transit Tax Area “A” so that it only include areas within the village boundaries as shown on Ottawa’s Official Plan for those villages receiving transit service.

History of the Rural Transit Levy

In a memo to members of the RIAC dated 15 September 2006, the Rural Affairs Office outlined, based on a review of departmental reports on this issue (ACS2001-TUP-TRN-0002, ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0003, and ACS2003-TUP-TRN-0003), the history of the Rural Transit Levy.  The following summarizes the main points outlined in the aforementioned memo.

·        There was no indication, in any of the aforementioned reports, that the Rural Transit Levy for Transit Area A, or B would be temporary.  What is indicated is that the usage of rural area transit would be reviewed and adjusted in accordance with ridership.  Some areas saw reduced service as a result of low ridership.  For instance, an initial bus to Ashton was discontinued, with the bus service now beginning at Munster.  Thus, the Ashton area became part of “B” instead of “A”. 

·        An April 7, 2003 report (ACS2003-TUP-TRN-0003) talked about a Rural Residents’ Attitude Survey, the Rural Implications of providing new or improved public transportation in the villages and rural areas of Ottawa, the Consultation undertaken in preparing the referenced report, how the new services would be consistent with the Transportation Master Plan, and the Financial Implications of providing the service.  The following is an excerpt from that report.

Rural Residents’ Attitude Survey  

A telephone survey was carried out of rural residents to learn about their knowledge and use of the rural transit services and their support for funding the service through property taxes.  A random sample of 774 rural residents was interviewed in November 2002, drawn approximately equally from Rural Transit Area A and Rural Transit Area B.

Overall, 65 percent of respondents supported the introduction of rural transit services: 72 percent of residents in Rural Transit Area A and 59 percent in Rural Transit Area B.  Thirty percent of respondents did not support the initiative, 22 percent in Area A and 37 percent in Area B.  Approximately 21 percent of respondents in Area A and 9 percent in Area B reported that someone in their household had used transit in the last two months.  Overall, 73 percent of respondents supported the expansion of Para Transpo into the rural areas, and 10 percent were opposed.

Questions were asked about whether or not taxes should be used to support the services.  When asked whether spending taxes to improve rural transit services is a good idea, 58 percent of respondents agreed, and 25 percent disagreed.  When asked to respond to a statement that rural taxes should not be used to support public transportation, 40 percent of the respondents agreed, and 40 percent disagreed.

When asked who should pay for the rural transit services 36 percent thought that users should pay, 30 percent thought the costs should be covered by all property taxpayers (rural and urban) and 26 percent thought that the costs should be covered jointly by transit users and rural property taxpayers.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

The services described in this report provide new or improved public transportation in the villages and rural areas of Ottawa.  The nature of the service that is provided in each area varies according to the population of the villages and rural areas and the travel needs of the people who live there.  The largest villages now have direct OC Transpo service to downtown during peak periods and local service at other times, and several smaller villages have new connector bus service.  The villages and rural areas, which are more distant from downtown, have access to commuter service provided by private intercity bus companies and to park and ride lots in the larger villages and in the urban area.  Para Transpo service has been extended to all parts of the City.

CONSULTATION

Extensive consultation has been carried out over the last two years in the planning and operation of transit service in the villages and rural areas:

-         Advertisements, brochures, and public open houses in June 2001

-         Advertisements, brochures, and public open houses in November 2001

-         Councillors’ public meetings in March 2002

-         Consultation with community associations and transit users’ groups in May 2002

-         Bus visits to villages in September 2002

-         Comments from customers since September 2002

-         Surveys of customers and residents in late 2002

-         Comments from community groups arising from the January 2003 report

-         Presentation of the January 2003 report to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee

The report was also reviewed by the Public Health and Long Term Care and Employment and Financial Assistance Branches of the People Services Department.

TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN

The City’s Transportation Master Plan establishes a principle that travellers will be encouraged to use transit in preference to individual automobiles.  The plan calls for park and ride lots and rural bus services to promote transit use by rural residents.

The new services in the villages and rural areas of Ottawa support the aims of the Transportation Master Plan, by providing new transit service connecting the largest villages and the parts of the surrounding rural areas directly with the central part of the City.  Customers who travel on these services now have a choice that they did not have previously, and are no longer required to use automobiles for their travel.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The financial situation for 2002 and recommendations for 2003 and 2004 are summarized in Exhibit 14.

Operating Costs

2002 Actual Results

The first four months of the improved rural service, from September to December 2002, cost more to operate than the revenue that was available from fares and taxes.  This was mostly because of the free fares that were offered in September and partly because of changes that were made to the boundary between Rural Transit Area A and Rural Transit Area B after the tax rates were calculated.  The 2002 operating deficit of approximately $80,000 was funded from the Transit Reserve Fund.

2003 and 2004 Operating Budget

As shown in Exhibit 14, subject to Council approval of the recommendations, the 2003 net operating budget for the rural service is $1.288 million.  Funds are available for this purpose in the approved 2003 Operating Budget of the Transit Services Branch.  

In 2004, gross costs are projected to remain constant with 2003, while revenue projections are increased.  Net adjustments will be finalized with approval of the 2004 Operating Budget. 

Capital Costs

The recommended service changes included in this report require the addition of two standard buses to the fleet.   The 2003 Capital Budget approved by City Council forecast a system growth requirement for purchase of 28 standard buses in 2004, in project 900874.  Recommendations in this report increase the 2004 growth forecast by 2 buses.  Approval of the additional requirement is subject to City Council deliberation of the 2004 Capital Budget and forecast. 

Beginning in 2003, property taxes collected in the Rural Transit Area A will contribute a proportionate amount to the total transit fund annual capital budget and debt servicing costs for fleet growth and replacement.  The recommended proportionate contribution from rural taxpayers for 2003 is $440,000, and is projected to be $530,000 in 2004.  This allocation is based on proportionate use of bus fleet in the urban versus rural area, and an estimate of direct capital costs for rural service such as additional shelters. 

Tax Requirement

The estimated net tax requirement from rural taxpayers for 2003, and the projection for 2004, is summarized as follows:

Note 1) Projections of average taxation vary from January 15, 2003 report to Committee due to impact of reassessment, and reduction in tax requirement from the previous estimate. 

Exhibit 14

Financial Summary for 2002, 2003 and 2004

·        A March 12, 2002 report (ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0003) discussed the Potential Transit Travel Market, a Rural Transit Area and Property Tax Levy, and some of the work still to be done on this matter.  The following is an excerpt from that report.

Potential transit travel market

Approximately 100,000 people live in the rural parts of Ottawa, outside the UTA. The largest villages are: Stittsville, with a population of approximately 14,000, Manotick, with 4700, Richmond, with 3700, Greely, with 3300, Osgoode, with 2700, and Constance Bay, with 2400. The villages of Carp, Cumberland, Metcalfe, Navan, and North Gower all have populations between 1000 and 2000. Table 1 shows the population of each village with a population over 500.  The remaining approximately 60,000 rural residents live outside the villages.

Travel and employment surveys have found that within these villages, just over half the population is employed. Of these people, approximately one-fifth work in central parts of Ottawa and Gatineau that are easily-reached by transit. Experience within the UTA shows that between 10 and 30 percent of these people would use transit service if it were provided, depending on whether the service offered choices of departure times and whether the service was fast and direct.

It is estimated that between 900 and 1400 residents outside the UTA would be eligible to register for Para Transpo service because of the nature of their disabilities.

The comments received through the consultation process indicate that many rural residents do not have access to their own automobiles and thus are dependent on others for their travel needs. This includes young people, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Development of recommendations

Information from the consultation process indicates that the greatest interest among village and rural residents is for direct transit service to central Ottawa for work and school trips during peak periods. The next-greatest interest is for local service to and within the larger rural villages, to accommodate shopping trips, trips to work after school, and to connect with the OC Transpo network.

The comments that were received during the consultation process reflected a wide range of opinions on how any transit service in rural areas should be funded. Most of the comments supported funding from both transit fares and from property taxes. Many rural residents suggested that the funding through property taxes be shared widely across the city.

Based on the information that was received during the consultation process (see Appendix B for a summary) and from previous travel surveys, staff have calculated that peak-period express service to central Ottawa could be successful from villages with populations of 2000 or more, funded approximately 80 percent from fares and 20 percent from taxes. The number of trips that can be offered, and thus the attractiveness of the service, is greater in the villages with a larger population. In villages with a population smaller than 2000, if express service were provided, the number of customers would be smaller, and a higher proportion of the funding would need to come from taxes. For villages with populations between 1000 and 2000, low-cost contracted connector bus services, such as those now operated from Ashton and Munster to Richmond, could be successful. These services connect smaller villages with express services to downtown Ottawa, and serve as a phased approach to possible future direct express services.

It has been calculated that all-day local service could be successful from and within villages with populations of 3000 or more, funded approximately 30 percent from fares and 70 percent from taxes. As for rural express service, more choices in route and in departure time can be offered in villages with a larger population. The same choices could be offered in smaller villages, again with a high proportion of the funding from taxes.

Through the consultation process, staff heard from some customers who now use the privately-operated inter-regional bus services which operate into downtown Ottawa from villages and towns outside the city limits. These customers were generally very happy with the service they receive, but would prefer to have more choices of travel time and better integration with OC Transpo services.

Residents with disabilities or who have family members with disabilities suggested that Para Transpo service be expanded to cover the entire city, and that trips which start and end outside the UTA be permitted, in addition to the present trips between the UTA and the rural area. Some rural residents who are already Para Transpo clients suggested that the fares be reduced, by moving a greater share of the total cost from fares to taxes.

Rural Transit Area and property tax levy

Part of the costs to provide the recommended services would be covered from a levy on property taxes in the villages and rural areas that would be served. This approach is the same as is taken in the UTA, except that the amount of the levy would be less in the rural areas, because of the lower amount of service that would be provided and the higher share of the cost of the rural express services that would be generated from fares. The operating costs of the recommended services would be covered approximately 50 percent from fares and 50 percent from property taxes. (For comparison, the operating costs of transit service in the UTA are funded 60 percent from fares and 40 percent from taxes.)

The total amount to be funded from property taxes would be approximately $1.9-million per year ($500,000 in 2002). This amount is made up of approximately $1.2-million per year toward the operating cost ($400,000 in 2002) and approximately $680,000 toward the capital cost ($100,000 in 2002).

A new Rural Transit Area, shown on Map 5, would be established by by-law. Within this area, there would be two zones, one nearer to central Ottawa, where residents would have access to the recommended new regular services and Para Transpo service, and one further from central Ottawa, where Para Transpo service would be available but where public transportation service is provided by the private inter-regional bus companies.

The inner zone of the Rural Transit Area would include the villages of Greely, Manotick, Navan, Notre Dame des Champs, Richmond, and Stittsville, all of the rural parts of Cumberland, Gloucester, Goulbourn, Kanata, and Nepean, and parts of Osgoode, Rideau, and West Carleton. The outer zone of the Rural Transit Area would include the northern part of West Carleton, the western part of Rideau, and the southern and eastern parts of Osgoode.

In the inner zone of the Rural Transit Area, a transit levy of approximately $52.00 would be charged each year (approximately $14.00 in 2002) on a residential property assessed at $150,000. This amount would cover approximately 50 percent of the operating cost of the regular transit services and approximately 70 percent of the cost of Para Transpo service in the area. (For comparison, the current levy inside the UTA is approximately $320.00 per year on a residential property assessed at $150,000.)

In the outer zone of the Rural Transit Area, a transit levy of approximately $5.00 would be charged each year (approximately $2.00 in 2002) on a residential property assessed at $150,000, to cover approximately 70 percent of the cost of Para Transpo service in the area.

This proposal differs from the initial proposal introduced in Phase 2 of the consultation, during November 2001. That proposal would have set a higher tax rate (approximately $144.00 per year) in the villages and an intermediate rate (approximately $12.00 per year) in the rest of the rural area. The recommendation in this report was developed to respond to residents’ suggestions to share the costs more broadly across the rural area.

CONTINUING WORK

Upon approval of these recommendations, a by-law would be brought to Council to enact the Rural Transit Area and its two zones.

Staff and Councillors would work with groups of present and prospective transit customers to determine the details of the routes that the recommended services would take within the villages, and to set the best scheduled trip times.

Introduction of the services in September 2002 would include a special marketing campaign to launch the new services, and the new services would be included in all regular OC Transpo information sources. The network of fare vendors would be expanded to the villages in the rural area to increase the availability of tickets and passes.

Once the services begin, ridership levels would be monitored and customers’ comments would be gathered and evaluated. Any service adjustments, which should be made immediately, would be made at the first possible opportunity. If any trips become overcrowded, service would be increased as soon as possible if it could be done without increasing costs, or a further report would be brought to the Transportation and Transit Committee if funding increases were recommended.

Ridership levels and travel patterns on the Para Transpo service would be monitored closely as soon as the service begins. If the demand for ridership is greater than predicted, then recommendations could be made to increase funding to expand the amount of service available. If travel patterns are such that the average length of a trip is longer or shorter than expected, then recommendations could be made to change the fare structure in future years.

Other possible service improvements would be evaluated and recommendations developed, to be presented to the Transportation and Transit Committee after one year of operation. This could include expanding the services to new areas, adding more trips, converting connector bus services to rural express services, expanding park and ride lots, or making changes to reduce costs on services with low ridership. In subsequent years, the services would be managed as a regular, but distinct, part of the OC Transpo system, with funding levels approved through the normal budget process and service changes approved through the annual Transplan and service performance processes.

·        Of note, the last three paragraphs (above) suggest that the service would be monitored and that adjustments could be recommended in terms of service levels, funding, and fare structure in future years. 

RIAC Chair’s Position

In an e-mail to members of the RIAC dated 16 September 2006, the RIAC Chairs outlined why he felt the tax was wrong in most of rural Ottawa.  The following lists his points:

·        In preparation for the Rural Summit one of the issues identified was that often staff consider consultation with rural villages as consultation with the rural area.

·        It is clear that this was the case with transit review in 2001 & 2002.

·        As a rural resident I was well aware of the Open Houses being held in several of the villages to discuss how bus service to down town could be improved.

·        The advertising made NO mention of a transit tax on farm property so why would I or any other farmer go out on a cold night in January to a meeting to discuss something that was of no interest.

·        The Rural Transit Tax idea was announced and approved so quickly that there was no opportunity for ARAAC to have input.

·        The way the charge appears on the tax bill many think they are only paying for Para Transpo.

·        The service is only to the villages, not to the rural concessions.

·        The same arguments that kept West Carleton and Osgoode out of area “A” should have kept all rural areas out.

·        Transit services to a village is an asset to any home owner, even if they don’t use it, because it increases resale value of their home.

·        For a farmer trying to sell, disclosing he has to pay a transit tax, but gets no service, it’s a liability.

·        If our council really means what they say when they talk about preserving farm land they should not be imposing a tax on us that is not a normal cost of doing business in rural Ontario.

·        I know staff will point to two municipalities where farmers pay transit tax, but it’s not our fault they didn’t fight for their rights. These two areas only affect a small number of farmers.

The RIAC Chair submitted that the rural transit service is directed to the villages, not the rural areas and that the cost may not be big but the principle was.  He suggested that the RIAC stop any attempts to impose charges that do not belong in the rural area.  He noted that there had been successful legal challenges where a municipality tried to impose a tax for a service they were not prepared to provide. 

CONSULTATION

Staff within the Legal Services Branch, Transit Services Branch, and Financial Services Branch were consulted in the preparation of this report.  The following represents their comments on the implications of the report recommendation.

Legal Services Branch

The Municipal Act permits Council to designate a Rural Transit Area in which property owners in that area are deemed to receive a “direct or indirect benefit” from the transit service.  The Municipal Act does not permit the City to subsequently select which assessments are to be included in the designated Rural Transit Area given that property owners in that area have all been deemed by Council to receive a “direct or indirect benefit” from the transit service.

The City is permitted to enact By-laws to designate transit areas with corresponding special tax levies based on the costs for the service.  The special tax levy applies to all rateable properties in the designated area.  In 2005, the City revisited the designated transit areas and established three transit areas with corresponding tax levies: rural, town and urban.  Currently, By-law 2005-528 establishes the Rural Transit Area.  As such, Council has recognized that property owners in the designated Rural Transit Area derive a benefit from public transportation systems.  By-law 2006-180 establishes the corresponding special levy for within Rural Transit Area for 2006. 

In terms of the applicable provincial legislation, the Municipal Act pursuant to section 312 and 326 permits the City to enact a by-law designating an area of the municipality in which the residents and property owners receive a “direct or indirect benefit” from the service for the purpose of raising a special levy.  All residents in the designated rural area have access to the transit service and therefore receive a “direct or indirect benefit”.  When Council established the Rural Transit Area By-law 2005-528 it confirmed that property owners in this designated area derive a benefit (either direct or indirect) from public transit.  The Act does not distinguish between property owners walking to the bus or boarding along the roads between the villages rather, if it can be demonstrated that the property owners within the designated area receive a “direct or indirect benefit”, the levy applies as specified within the by-law to each property class within the designated area.  That being said, the City cannot at this time select which properties are exempt from the special levy within the designated area.

Transit Services Branch

The advisory committee’s recommendation, if adopted by Council, would itself have no effect on transit services in the rural areas. As it would not change the service, there would be no effects on transit customers nor on the transit budget.  Staff would not recommend making any changes to the rural express transit routes or to the bus stops along the routes.

There are, however, some points that staff ask that Committee and Council take into account when considering the advisory committee’s recommendation:

-         Schedule A of the Official Plan shows boundaries for Carlsbad Springs, Cumberland Village, Fallowfield Village, Kars, Manotick, Munster Hamlet, Navan, North Gower, Notre-Dame-des-Champs, Richmond, Sarsfield, and Vars, all of which currently have access to rural express transit service.

-         Some residential areas near these villages are outside the village boundaries defined in the Official Plan. For example, Route 221 serves Dunning Road and Wilhaven Drive south of Cumberland Village, and Route 232 serves Devine Road and Dunning Road east of Vars, but those areas are not within the boundaries of the villages as designated in the Official Plan.

-         Some other residential areas served by rural express transit routes are not identified in the Official Plan. In particular, Route 45 serves Carleton Golf and Yacht Club (south of Manotick) and Gloucester Glen and Honey Gables (north of Manotick), Route 232 serves Bearbrook (northeast of Vars), and Route 263 serves Kimini Court (south of Stittsville). These areas are not within village boundaries defined in the Official Plan but are served by rural express transit service.

-         As noted in the previous points, the rural express transit routes are used by customers not only within the villages defined in Schedule A of the Official Plan, but also by customers using bus stops on the outskirts of the villages, in other residential areas, and along the roads that connect the villages. Approximately 70 percent of the current ridership on the rural express transit service is made to or from bus stops within the defined village boundaries, and 30 percent is made to or from bus stops outside the village boundaries.

-         Customers of the rural express transit service currently contribute to the cost of operating the service both through fares and the property taxes, as decided by Council. If the advisory committee’s recommendation were adopted, customers who live in the villages defined in the Official Plan would continue to contribute to the cost of operating the service both through fares and property taxes, but customers who live outside the village boundaries would contribute only through fares. The customers who live outside the village boundaries would not be contributing equitably to the costs.

-         Rural and village residents and property owners who are not transit customers currently contribute to the cost of operating the rural express transit service through property taxes, as decided by Council. In reaching this decision in 2002, Council discussed indirect benefits that transit service has for non-customers, in particular the reduction of demand on rural roads by commuters who would otherwise need to travel by automobile.

Financial Services

Based on the opinion provided by Legal Services, the City cannot at this time select which properties are exempt from a special levy within the designated area.  Therefore, the report recommendation to request that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee take the necessary steps, in time for the 2007 taxes, to change the boundaries of Rural Transit Tax Area “A” so that it only include areas within the village boundaries as shown on Ottawa’s Official Plan for those villages receiving transit service would appear to be in contravention of this legal opinion.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

If the boundaries of Rural Transit Area “A” were permitted to be changed to only include the areas within the village boundaries as shown on Ottawa’s Official Plan, extensive work to determine the assessment in those villages would be required in order to calculate the exact impact on the an average rural residential property tax bill.  Currently the cost to an average residential property for transit services in Rural Transit Tax Area “A” with an assessed value of $276,245 is approximately $57 per year.  

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1         Extract of Minutes from the September 19, 2006 RIAC meeting

DISPOSITION

The Committee Coordinator will inform the Rural Issues Advisory Committee of the Standing Committee and Council decision on the recommendation.

Staff in Financial Services Branch and/or Transit Services Branch to implement Council’s decision.

            RURAL TRANSIT TAX – AREA A

PRéLèVEMENT LIé AU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN DANS LE SECTEUR RURAl d’ottawa – ZONE A

Chair Fraser introduced this item, noting that members had received background information via e-mail, including a proposed motion.

Members discussed the item insofar as:  the benefits of rural transit; the areas served by rural transit and paying the levy; access to transit services in rural areas; ridership; and the costs of providing the service versus the cost to taxpayers.  In general, Committee members acknowledged the difficulties faced by area farmers and agreed that unnecessary costs should not be imposed on them.

Member Cannon indicated she would not support the motion because she believed rural transit benefited everyone, whether directly or indirectly, and she felt the levy was a small price to pay for the greater good of the community and the environment.  Furthermore, she noted that the motion did not specifically ask for an exemption for local farmers; it cast a much wider net than that.

Following this discussion, the Committee voted on the motion.

Moved by Member T. Otto

WHEREAS a transit tax is not a normal cost of doing business in rural Ontario;

AND WHEREAS rural transit tax area “A” was imposed on Ottawa farmers without meaningful consultation;

AND WHEREAS the rural transit service is directed at serving the villages, not the rural concessions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Issues Advisory Committee request that the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee take the necessary steps, in time for the 2007 taxes, to change the boundaries of Rural Transit Tax Area “A” so that it only include areas within the village boundaries as shown on Ottawa’s Official Plan for those villages receiving transit service.

Carried with S. Cannon dissenting